Could humans adapt or “evolve” to changing global climate?

Feb 14, 2014


Discussion by: Evie123

I'm totally novice in scientific understanding/topics/etc.. 

 It terms of how we see evolution as a long and gradual process, it would seem that the time (howeverlong) leading up to extreme global temperatures would kill us before we would have a chance to adapt. However, there have been instances where a specific evolving or adapting happened rather quickly, but those events usually still took quite a long time to "happen". Then again, how quickly we could evolve/are evolving appears to be a difficult thing to predict, so maybe my initial question is flawed. I simply am asking it in a loose manner, hoping for some illumination even if my question turns out to be totally bogus. Lol.

120 comments on “Could humans adapt or “evolve” to changing global climate?

  • There is a sci-fi film called Waterworld where there isn’t any dry land, anymore, and the lead character played, by Kevin Costner, has gills behind his ears. That is just stupid.

    Our children are going to suffer because that is the kind of world it is because that is the kind of world that you and I have made.



    Report abuse

  • One of the things you don’t want to be around for is a major biological ‘selection event’. Most don’t make it through the bottleneck and its rather harrowing for the few that do.



    Report abuse

  • 3
    Alan4discussion says:

    There have been particular human tribes or races who have survived in extreme climates – Inuit in the north – others in deserts or on tropical islands.

    The main feature of this is their numbers are very small and at low population densities. Human could adapt up to certain points, but if a Permian type extinction event was triggered that would probably push a human, slow maturing, slow reproducing species near the top of the food-chain, to extinction.

    The Permo-Triassic mass extinction 252 million years ago
    >
    – The Permian period was between 290 Ma and 252 Ma.
    – At that time the land was in one mass called a supercontinent. This supercontinent was PANGEA.
    – 95% of all marine life on earth was killed.
    – 70% of all land families became extinct.

    Being in tune with the environment is an important survival issue. Many shipwrecked sailors in life-boats have starved while surrounded by a sea of food they did not know how to harvest. European expeditions to the Arctic froze and starved to death, while the Inuit in the same areas lived as usual.



    Report abuse

  • Good question! I feel that the your real question is ‘will humans survive climate change?’. I think probably , yes, even if things really get extreme. There are still (decreasing numbers of) isolated populations that could survive. But: evolution does take a long time; adaptation is non-directional. And we can still slow climate change if only governments woke up! Worst case scenario: who knows! BUT humans are very adaptable and who knows maybe those in power will learn to ignore big oil, climate change sceptics, big energy, bankers, etc.



    Report abuse

  • In the short term I see the rich being able to survive because we can afford to move to higher ground and pay a lot more for scarce resources such as food. In the meantime, the many eking out an existence in cyclone prone lowlands will be wiped out in their droves. This will eventuate in a bottleneck of sorts and contrary to popular teaching, the wealthy will inherit the world.

    In the long term it has been suggested in a recent publication that rats will be the ultimate survivors.



    Report abuse

  • By evolving to adapt to climate changes, what do you mean?? Growing fins, flippers, gills, and bodies that could withstand temperatures in excess of 500 degrees C, radiation, and digest raw food and plants rocks and mineral and sea water? Because I suppose we are going to need all of that to survive …in case we destroy the world, as we know it, through global warming.



    Report abuse

  • 7
    Reckless Monkey says:

    Hi Evie123

    Depends on what you mean by extreme climate change. Water vapour is a far more potent greenhouse gas than C02 but the more c02 the more water vapour the more warming. As this helps lead to greater bush fires, melting of previously ice covered regions thereby exposing long frozen peat bogs and other vegetable matter which no continues to biodegrade and in some cases burn releasing methane (another potent greenhouse gas) and more c02 (and I haven’t spoken about methane trapped at ocean depths that if sufficient ocean warming occurs will burp up) you can see if we it all depends on the degree to which we let it run away. It is conceivable (I gather highly unlikely) that we could end up with a Venusian style run-away greenhouse effect. If that is what you mean – nothing survives that this is basically Lovelock’s view as I understand it.

    However the most likely outcome is that our tinkering screws up the climate sufficiently to cause further mass extinctions in plants and animals which impact on our societal structures, that the requirements to leave previously good land and move whole civilisations leads to enormous conflict, disease, death and chaos particularly in poor countries and massive economic costs in the west. Where I live in Australia the only places predicted to have sufficient regular rainfall will be northern parts which are (in my opinion) already oppressively hot and humid. This of course will cause massive destruction of natural habitats up there to make way for farmland compounding our environmental problems. Australia which to my shame is acting shamefully towards a few thousand boat people per year is also likely to be flooded with refugees from all over the world. How long before our navy already towing boats back to Indonesia waters will be ordered to open fire on them instead? And we won’t be able to claim we have no responsibility for the conditions leading to this as we do now claiming that we only contribute a tiny fraction of CO2 per capita (ignoring the fact that we are the second largest exporter of coal in the world).

    So in summary the question is probably not will humans evolve to climate change? Rather, can our societies survive climate change? Personally I’m not keen to find out.



    Report abuse

  • 9
    David R Allen says:

    No. We won’t evolve, but there will be remnant populations in the far north and deep south that will adapt.

    The equatorial regions will be unlivable for humans, who need to sweat to remain cool. There has to be a gap between the temperature and the humidity to allow humans to gain a cooling effect from sweating. An article in New Scientist indicates that a 2 degree warming will make the tropics lethal to humans. You die if you can’t sweat. Given the vast majority of humanity live between the Tropic’s of Capricorn and Cancer, and with a population of 9-12 billion people, there will be attempted mass migrations of climate refugee’s to the north and the south. This will result in conflicts and wars. If the planet can’t support 9-12 billion with the current surface area, it won’t be able to support 9-12 billion north and south of the Tropics.

    Maslow’s pyramid is the blue print for the future. Each step up the pyramid is only supported if the rung below is stable. When the bottom rung fails, everything else will fall down. Civilization collapse. What makes me desperately sad is that my grand children will go through this and witness the collapse of humanity if they live that long. And what makes me really angry is that we are perpetrating a self inflict species genocide on ourselves. We’ve evolved to only consider short term events indecision making. Short term profit and gain. Capitalism WILL NOT STOP.

    BTW…. Is global warming caused by burning too much carbon, or is it because there are too many people, burning carbon. Our planet can sustainable support around 1 billion people forever under frugal resource usage conditions. Given we’ve hit 7 billion, heading to 9-12 billion, all aspiring to capitalist wealth, we are doomed. If I was the only person on the planet, I could burn as much coal and oil as I liked. Cut down some trees. Hunt animals. If there were 10 of us, no problem. 100 million humans still no problem.

    But the earth is a closed biological system. Like every farmer on the planet already knows, a closed paddock has a carrying capacity. The earth has a carrying capacity, and we’ve far exceeded that. Look at the maths of animal plagues. Look up the graphs. Our population growth is following exactly the graph of an animal plague. Now look up what happens when the animal plague exhausts the resources. The population graph crashes almost vertically back to near zero. That is humanities future. Self inflicted genocide.

    And there is no political solution to this. Invent a political system that will return the population of the planet back to 1 billion by the year 2100. One in 17 women could have a child!! You could go to an election with that as you platform!!! Everyone will vote for that!!!. Democracy is a wonderful system, but it can only deliver popular decisions. It can’t deliver tough love. There is no solution to the population problem except hitting the wall and experiencing a mass crash. Won’t be pretty.

    Global warming is like Pascall’s Wager. Even if you a certifiably insane global warming denier, you may as well take action stop using carbon, because if you are right, you will have moved the world from fossil fuels to renewables and you won’t know the difference. Capitalism still rampant, but no longer lethal. You can still get rich. If the scientists are right, same result. No downside. But a certifiably insane denier wouldn’t understand scientific probabilities, so that’s just another forlorn hope.

    Farewell cruel world.



    Report abuse

  • 10
    David R Allen says:

    In reply to #7 by Reckless Monkey:

    Hi Evie123

    Depends on what you mean by extreme climate change. Water vapour is a far more potent greenhouse gas than C02 but the more c02 the more water vapour the more warming. As this helps lead to greater bush fires, melting of previously ice covered regions thereby exposing long frozen peat b…

    Australia, and Australians are now an embarrassment around the world in the fight against global warming. A new right wing conservative government has just been elected by Australians. Their first act was to repeal a carbon tax. The Prime Minister is on record as saying “the climate change argument is absolute crap”. Maybe we need some accelerated evolution in our politicians to understand scientific probability. Ohhh the shame. Pass the paper bag.



    Report abuse

  • We’ll make our own changes soon. For the first time in history we’ll have our own handiwork embedded forever in our DNA.
    Harder, Better, Faster!



    Report abuse

  • 12
    rizvoid says:

    In reply to #10 by David R Allen:

    Australia, and Australians are now an embarrassment around the world in the fight against global warming. A new right wing conservative government has just been elected by Australians. Their first act was to repeal a carbon tax. The Prime Minister is on record as saying “the climate change argument is absolute crap”. Maybe we need some accelerated evolution in our politicians to understand scientific probability. Ohhh the shame. Pass the paper bag.

    I think the new PM did the right thing. Australia’s carbon tax system was not going to have any real and tangible effects on the climate. Plus, when you have giant polluters like India and China with no such policies, and not even a remote chance of having such policies in the future, Australia’s carbon tax debate looks more of like an ideological issue. The doing the right kind of thing debate. Not a scientific debate.



    Report abuse

  • 13
    Reckless Monkey says:

    In reply to #10 by David R Allen:

    In reply to #7 by Reckless Monkey:

    Australia, and Australians are now an embarrassment around the world in the fight against global warming.

    Oh how right you are. What really bugs me is the cry ‘it’s okay if we don’t do anything it won’t make any difference because our population is so small’. Well as I think the worlds second biggest coal exporter based upon a admittedly limited understanding of economics but I would suspect if we stopped selling all of that coal it might spike the price of coal world wide making the alternatives look better would it not? Late Night Live had a guest dealing with the ability to deal with climate change in Australia (completely going alternative energy) worth a listen and might make you feel less inclined to put your head in a bag.

    [click here] (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/strategies-for-addressing-climate-change/5239754)



    Report abuse

  • 14
    David R Allen says:

    In reply to #13 by Reckless Monkey:

    In reply to #10 by David R Allen:

    In reply to #7 by Reckless Monkey:

    Australia, and Australians are now an embarrassment around the world in the fight against global warming.

    Oh how right you are. What really bugs me is the cry ‘it’s okay if we don’t do anything it won’t make any difference beca…

    Heard the Late Night Live. Recommend the listen. This is what infuriates me about humanity. We have all the technology we need to turn off the carbon. Right now. On the shelves. It might mean a few changes in how we live, but as per Pascal’s Wager. So what. And the only reason we don’t is that the precious free market might have some winners and losers.

    This may sound silly coming from an Atheist, but I kinda hope that there will be a second coming. And the first thing that Brian says is, “In 10 years I’m going to turn all the coal and oil into granite. So planet earth, you’ve got ten years to convert to renewables. Go onto a war footing and get on with. You did it during WW2. Now I’ve got a whole universe to attend to, teeming with life and I don’t particularly care if you lot go extinct or not. Plenty more where U lot come from. You’re nothing special. So over to you humans. See if you can work on your altruism.”



    Report abuse

  • 15
    Reckless Monkey says:

    In reply to #12 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #10 by David R Allen:

    I think the new PM did the right thing. Australia’s carbon tax system was not going to have any real and tangible effects on the climate.

    I agree there may well be a good debate about carbon tax verses carbon price, I also agree that 5% target is a piddling amount but once a legislation is in place it could be ramped up over time. However to address your if India and China don’t fix their problems what we do will make no difference. Here I have to respectfully disagree for the following reasons. Note: some of these relate to doing nothing about our carbon emissions rather than simply scraping the carbon tax itself but as I believe this is the Liberal governments actual position which you seem to have taken on then I’ll address the wider point also – my apologies if this does not characterise your position. I acknowledge I may be doing this ahead of time.

    A) if we stop selling Coal and Gas prices will rise. As worlds second biggest exporter of coal this would have an impact.

    B) China is already manufacturing solar cells and investing in this technology and others they are doing something, other than selling patents to them so that in the future when everyone realises yes we actually have to do something we will have sold our way out of the market.

    C) We can not negotiate or encourage other countries to do the right thing if we choose not to oursleves, they will just rightly point to us and say fix your own house before lecturing us about ours. We supply China with a lot of minerals and raw materials so we are in a position to negotiate.

    D) The price rises in electricity over the period of time leading up to the carbon tax had nothing to do with a price on carbon and everything to do with increases electricity demands due to the mass adoption of air-conditioners which as a kind of double irony has actually started to fall away due to the adoption by so many of photovoltaic cells (which Tony does not want to support-and here in Queensland Campbell Newman has already taken away most of the support and signalled getting rid of the rest).

    I’ve come across this argument a lot from the likes of Andrew Bolt when he asks this very specific question ‘exactly how much will the carbon tax reduce global temperatures’. A bit of textual analysis here will show what he is doing. The key word here is ‘reduce’. This is the wrong question and I believe he knows it. Because every time he asks Tim Flannery this Tim has to say ‘it won’t’ (because he unlike Bolt is honest). No 5% of our per capita emissions will not reduce temperature it will slow the increase. In the same sense that if there is a plug in a bath with the tap turned on flat out winding back the tap by 5% won’t stop the tub overflowing only slow down how quickly that happens.

    Perhaps my argument could be best spelled out with another analogy. You are speeding down the highway at 200km/h in the fog. Suddenly you see a large semi-trailer ahead. You have no time to turn, you are going too fast to stop before you hit it. All you can do is nothing, brake or accelerate. So all that remains for you to decide is exactly how fast do you want to hit the truck?



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #13 by Reckless Monkey:

    In reply to #10 by David R Allen:

    In reply to #7 by Reckless Monkey:

    Australia, and Australians are now an embarrassment around the world in the fight against global warming.

    Oh how right you are. What really bugs me is the cry ‘it’s okay if we don’t do anything it won’t make any difference beca…

    I’ve just listened to this excellent program. To think we could be self sufficient in renewables in the near future by simply expanding the sites we already have! It’s shocking that the fossil fuel lobby has so much sway. I can’t see any progress until there’s a change of government. Fortunately this is beginning to appear possible as I doubt Abbott will get a second term.



    Report abuse

  • 17
    Catfish says:

    The main impact of global warming will not be on our bodies but on the systems and infrastructure we have in place to support the current levels of population and civilization. If, for example, food cannot be produced and transported at current levels because of climate change (droughts, extreme weather events, etc) then (at some point) large cities will not be possible which means New York, London, Sydney, etc will have to fall apart. This will be a very ugly and probably viscous process.
    Forget about biological evolution on this topic. Biological evolution takes care of itself and is never a solution but just the blind outcome of all the circumstances that happened to lie in its path.
    The question is Can civilization evolve to protect itself from the threat of global warming?



    Report abuse

  • 18
    rizvoid says:

    In reply to #17 by Catfish:

    The main impact of global warming will not be on our bodies but on the systems and infrastructure we have in place to support the current levels of population and civilization. If, for example, food cannot be produced and transported at current levels because of climate change (droughts, extreme w…

    Imagine the oceans rising and half of Japan and its many N reactors going underwater. Radiation spreading throughout the planet within months, and… then what? Could we ever survive something like this ????



    Report abuse

  • 19
    David R Allen says:

    In reply to #12 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #10 by David R Allen:

    Australia, and Australians are now an embarrassment around the world in the fight against global warming. A new right wing conservative government has just been elected by Australians. Their first act was to repeal a carbon tax. The Prime Minister is on record as s…

    Australia is the largest exporter of coal. We have the second highest per capita use of fossil fuels. In simple words. Australia is a bad country. It does not matter a squids ink whether what we do has any world wide effect on CO2 levels or temperature rise. But what does matter is a G20 rich first world nation taking some pain and showing by example that action on burning carbon is urgently necessary. How pathetically primary school playground is the position, “We won’t do anything until you do something.” Australia could be and should be the world leader on action on global warming. We need to start wearing a white had, instead of our black hat.

    This will be the test for the Australian Prime Minister who states; “the climate change argument is absolute crap”. He also wrongly and frequently states that renewables can never deliver base load power. He will scrap the carbon tax. He says he will replace it with direct action to reduce carbon. Solar / Salt / Thermal produces base load power 24/7/365. Australia is the sunniest country on earth. The Port Augusta coal fired power station is about to be replaced. Put your money where you mouth is Prime Minister and build a Solar Thermal plant at Port Augusta as a trial, and given they are already proven technology, role these out Australia wide as your “Direct Action” policy implementation.

    I will predict here and now, that during the next four years of Australia’s conservative government, they will do nothing.



    Report abuse

  • 20
    David R Allen says:

    In reply to #18 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #17 by Catfish:

    The main impact of global warming will not be on our bodies but on the systems and infrastructure we have in place to support the current levels of population and civilization. If, for example, food cannot be produced and transported at current levels because of climat…

    No



    Report abuse

  • 21
    rizvoid says:

    In reply to #19 by David R Allen:

    In reply to #12 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #10 by David R Allen:

    Australia, and Australians are now an embarrassment around the world in the fight against global warming. A new right wing conservative government has just been elected by Australians. Their first act was to repeal a carbon tax. The Pri…

    So yes, you are basically agreeing with me that it is an ideological issue, and not a scientific issue? Because if we look at this matter from a scientific viewpoint, it is not hard at all to conclude that Australia’s carbon tax policies will not have made a squid’s ink difference to the climate? It’s all about doing the right thing and being an inspiring leader? Well, tell you what, try inspiring China and India, where it is quite normal for taxis to blow smoke in their own cabins and and out in the air, where buses and trucks pump out thick black smoke in the air, and no gives a damn. It’s all perfectly normal there. People are not rich enough to buy new cars every year, and keep their cars buses and truck regularly serviced. You want to tell them to use alternative sources there, and pay carbon taxes on the carbon they burn? They are going to ask you to give them something to eat first…



    Report abuse

  • 22
    Reckless Monkey says:

    In reply to #21 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #19 by David R Allen:

    In reply to #12 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #10 by David R Allen:

    So yes, you are basically agreeing with me that it is an ideological issue, and not a scientific issue?

    The scientific consensus is we need to remove the other 95% of our emissions. Neither of the major political parties in Australia are willing to this it would seem. So yes both sides are completely gutless on this. Only difference being that at least labour A) acknowledges that it is a real problem and doesn’t still lie about the science and B) is willing to do something (albeit far too little).

    Because if we look at this matter from a scientific viewpoint, it is not hard at all to conclude that Australia’s carbon tax policies will not have made a squid’s ink difference to the climate?

    See my comment above + what it would do is raise the price of carbon. For carbon intensive industries this gives a competitive advantage to any of these industries willing to do something to reduce their carbon the other will have to pass on the costs to customers. Companies often work on very narrow margins so this would start a race to reduce carbon. If as you say it wouldn’t make a squids difference then you cannot argue it would be a particularly onerous tax. You cannot have it both ways. Either it will have an economic impact on polluters and therefore put a price signal on carbon intensive industries to clean up their act and therefore have an impact on carbon emissions in the only country we can change carbon emissions directly or it will have no impact and therefore not cost a significant amount to do something about.

    Stopping the export of Coal and natural Gas would drastically impact on global warming – what would happen to oil prices is say all the middle east refused to sell it? Would electric car manufacturing gear up? Would we not be encouraged to find alternatives?

    It’s all about doing the right thing and being an inspiring leader?

    Not all but it’s certainly impossible to encourage someone to do something if you are not prepared to do your bit.

    Well, tell you what, try inspiring China and India, where it is quite normal for taxis to blow smoke in their own cabins and and out in the air, where buses and trucks pump out thick black smoke in the air, and no gives a damn. It’s all perfectly normal there. People are not rich enough to buy new cars every year,

    most still ride bicycles

    and keep their cars buses and truck regularly serviced.

    All the more reason to make sure that when aspiring Chinese car owners can afford to buy one it is electric charged by alternative energy.

    Somehow I feel it may be us buying Chinese electric cars in the future because Australia to its shame struggles to think sufficiently highly enough of itself to actually do much more than dig things out of the ground and grow them, what car industry we had has squandered the tens of millions given to it by the Rudd government to do something about making greener cars and decades of betting against the trend of people to buy smaller more efficient cars to make v8 machines for the minority of Australians more happy to be ingesting the toxic emissions of their tyres as they burn them up in pointless circles or driving around in pointless circuits around town sexually harassing innocent females (who by the way rarely give a damn about their cars), oblivious to the fact that A) girls generally are not turned on by boys in yelling out ‘Show us ya tits!’ and that B) the Doppler effect renders it as something more like ‘Sosatiiiiiittsssssssss!’ barely audible over the DOOF DOOF blasting away what is left of their high frequency hearing. Which will in a couple of decades make it even harder to hear the Great Wall electric car (re-badged as a Holden Barina Volt or something) quietly running them over as they cross the road, with ZERO emissions.

    You want to tell them to use alternative sources there, and pay carbon taxes on the carbon they burn? They are going to ask you to give them something to eat first…

    They should use alternative sources for the same reason we should, they will not have enough to eat if they don’t. They cannot eat a car. And as I said before they are already doing far more than we are to my endless shame. I want to be proud to be an Australian, I want to be patriotic but at the moment every time I see a flag in front of someone’s house I worry they are xenophobic, every time I hear the national anthem I want to vomit. Please will the real Australia stand up and show some balls (other than cricket balls).



    Report abuse

  • 23
    rizvoid says:

    In reply to #22 by Reckless Monkey:

    In reply to #21 by rizvoid:

    Stopping the export of Coal and natural Gas would drastically impact on global warming – what would happen to oil prices is say all the middle east refused to sell it? Would electric car manufacturing gear up? Would we not be encouraged to find alternatives?

    If the Middle East refuses to sell oil, it would be the Middle East going bankrupt first, because the entire economy of the Middle East depends on oil. Oil is their primary export, and their only source of income. True, they also export dates and camels, but these exports constitute such a small part of their total income generated from their exports that we can completely disregard camels and dates. Australia is in the same category. It relies heavily on the export of natural resources, including coal. If Australia stops supplying coal to the world, then it is Australia that will suffer far more than the countries it exports coal to. The countries it exports coal to will find coal from elsewhere, maybe at a higher price, but they will nonetheless find coal from some other countries, or maybe turn altogether to some other form of fossil fuel. But Australia, with one of its major exports gone, will suffer far more. It can’t afford to do that.

    In fact, when you look into the situation, no country can afford to lose any of their imports and exports. We all depend on each other.

    The scientific consensus is we need to remove the other 95% of our emissions. Neither of the major political parties in Australia are willing to this it would seem. So yes both sides are completely gutless on this. Only difference being that at least labour A) acknowledges that it is a real problem and doesn’t still lie about the science and B) is willing to do something (albeit far too little).

    Yes, but is it possible to achieve this target? Scientific evidence show that no amount of carbon taxing will achieve that target when we have giant polluters like India and China, who are only increasing their pollution as time goes by, and who are refusing to be part of any such scheme. If it is not possible to achieve that target, then why bother? Why make low-earners suffer by imposing a useless carbon tax on them just to feel happy and moral? Why not just accept the fact that we have screwed up the planet beyond repairs, and just sit back and relax? Why feel shame? We all are part of the system. We all did it. No one can blame anyone else.



    Report abuse

  • 24
    David R Allen says:

    In reply to #21 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #19 by David R Allen:

    In reply to #12 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #10 by David R Allen:

    Australia, and Australians are now an embarrassment around the world in the fight against global warming. A new right wing conservative government has just been elected by Australians. Their first act…

    And you can glean all that just from the word “No.” Amazing.

    How can this not be a scientific issue. This is the evidence. Science. This is the solution. Yep. More science. I don’t care what your ideology is, just get on with it.

    As for the smoke coming out of the exhaust, the very common video cut on a news story about global warming, that smoke is soot that settles to the ground. You clearly don’t understand the science, because the stuff that is going to kill your grandchildren is colourless, odourless and tasteless. (That’s more science from high school.)

    I can remember the rest of your argument from when I was in primary school. “They started it.” “NO. YOU STARTED IT.” Pointless unless this is the level that you think arguments should exist. This is really simple. Australia, the US in particular, and the rest of the G20 need to provide aggressive leadership on this issue. They need to show that they will suffer pain and economic damage to get the job done. India will follow quickly. China will be isolated. The rest of the countries of the world don’t matter. A few noises about economic sanctions and all the billionaires in the Chinese Govt will soon be on board. New Scientist is reporting that China is now the leading country in the world for the implementation of carbon reduction strategies. Before you point your finger at China, you first need to look in the mirror.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23607-china-moots-reaching-emissions-peak-by-2025.html#.Uv820_vWhU0

    And seeing your into Philosophy, give me two hundreds words on this. “An ideology is an argument in the absence of evidence.” First year uni stuff.



    Report abuse

  • 25
    Reckless Monkey says:

    In reply to #23 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #22 by Reckless Monkey:

    In reply to #21 by rizvoid:

    If the Middle East refuses to sell oil, it would be the Middle East going bankrupt first, because the entire economy of the Middle East depends on oil. Oil is their primary export, and their only source of income. True, they also export dates and camels, but these exports constitute such a small part of their total income generated from their exports that we can completely disregard camels and dates. Australia is in the same category. It relies heavily on the export of natural resources, including coal.

    Yes we would stand to loose between about 38 to 55 billion/per year (based on recent years). China now making solar panels (designed by Australians – which we refused to support and are now buying back of the Chinese and putting on our roof tops) estimates that at current rates of reduction in costs photovoltaic will reach parity with coal as a cost per kilowatt by 2020. What do do you plan to do when no-one wants to buy our filthy coal any-more? Same for the middle east if they don’t wake up soon and realise that either global demand will suck their wells dry or sufficiently so that prices rise so high that people will move to alternatives or the reality of AGW (which you have not factored into any of this) will become sufficiently apparent that no-one will want that either and their economy will implode (a far more potent weapon if you ask me than bombing the hell out of them). So either way will will eventually need to stop digging the crap out of the ground so why not now while there is a genuine threat to deal with and we are in sufficiently economically well off to do so. We should be putting the fossil fuel industry on notice you either shift to supplying us with green energy now or your industry will be shut down! If we wait till regular major floods, bushfires and droughts cost us far more than the 3%GDP coal gives us and we don’t invest in the alternatives to replace the 3%GDP we are going to be doubly screwed.

    If Australia stops supplying coal to the world, then it is Australia that will suffer far more than the countries it exports coal to. The countries it exports coal to will find coal from elsewhere, maybe at a higher price,

    Definitely at a higher price

    but they will nonetheless find coal from some other countries, or maybe turn altogether to some other form of fossil fuel.

    Or turn to more alternative energy

    But Australia, with one of its major exports gone, will suffer far more. It can’t afford to do that.

    No it won’t and yes it can. If you have read any of the long term projections to what will happen to our economy when AGW really hits Australia you would realise that this is not some hippy, save the world crusade this is hard factual economic survival of our country we are talking about. Given we are contributing a huge proportion of the worlds coal currently we can have a major impact by keeping the damn stuff out of the atmosphere an safely sequestered under the ground. You are also ignoring the massive potential impact of open cut mining on health and the rural sector, not to mention the threat to water table in the driest continent (short of Antarctica) from coal seam gas which is being rushed through rural Australia as we speak. How does our food exports stack up against coal?

    In fact, when you look into the situation, no country can afford to lose any of their imports and exports. We all depend on each other.

    No argument there, I’d just rather we exported something that was less dangerous and had a future the point of non-renewable resources is they are wait for it…not renewable. Shock horror! Hell if 10 000 highly trained specialist scientists are wrong you can dig out latter with my full support and encouragement, I’ll even bring a shovel. How about we actually manufacture and supply our neighbours with solar cells, wind turbines, technology-even products nah! Aussies can’t do anything but dig holes and grow things.

    Yes, but is it possible to achieve this target?

    yes see my previous posts about the Late Night Live interview listen to it about 10 mins long.

    Scientific evidence show that no amount of carbon taxing will achieve that target when we have giant polluters like India and China, who are only increasing their pollution as time goes by, and who are refusing to be part of any such scheme.

    Already addressed this several times in fact, can you either argue against my point or stop bringing up the same argument.

    If it is not possible to achieve that target, then why bother? Why make low-earners suffer by imposing a useless carbon tax on them just to feel happy and moral? Why not just accept the fact that we have screwed up the planet beyond repairs, and just sit back and relax? Why feel shame? We all are part of the system. We all did it. No one can blame anyone else.

    Because I have a child and hope one day he may also. This last statement says a lot more about you than you may have wished to have. I find it hard to believe you could be so callous. On one hand you are accusing me of imposing an economic burden on low socio-economic people from China and Australia and now your argument is screw it let billions die of starvation, agony and disease because Australia can’t afford to lose 3% of its GDP? I’ll put it down to hubris I can’t believe you can really really think like that.



    Report abuse

  • 26
    David R Allen says:

    In reply to #23 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #22 by Reckless Monkey:

    In reply to #21 by rizvoid:

    Stopping the export of Coal and natural Gas would drastically impact on global warming – what would happen to oil prices is say all the middle east refused to sell it? Would electric car manufacturing gear up? Would we not be encourag…

    How you be so wrong so often.

    Your entire argument for not saving your grand children’s life is some rich person won’t make a profit. That is the summary of this entire diatribe. You, would make decisions based on economics, and not science. And I’d like to see you cite the science that says that raising the price on carbon has no effect. Even Australia’s miniscule carbon tax was starting to have an effect.

    If economics is the only thing you think is worthy of consideration when discussing scientific issues, then consider this. I am a very rich person coming to Australia. I want to start a chemical industry. There’ll be some waste, that I will have to dispose of, but the cost of disposing of that pollution will be born by the buyers of my product. That’s how economics works.

    I talk to my Australian advisers and they tell me I’m mad. Don’t even think about it. Build a coal fired power station. The pollution of your process is colourless, odourless and tasteless. No one can see it or detect any effect. You can send this carbon dioxide straight up the chimney into the atmosphere for free, and you don’t have to pass on any of those nasty pollution costs to your customers. You with me so far.

    Now answer this. Why does a person who pollutes as part of their business have to pay for the cost of cleaning up that pollution and pass it on to their customers when fossil fuel pollution costs the user nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

    And apply your economics only arguments to this. What happens the second the fossil fuel industry has to capture the pollution they produce (An impossible task) and pass on the cost to the users. What will be the price of a litre of fuel. What will be the cost of a megawatt of power. What will be the price comparison between fossil fuels and renewables. Which one will be cheaper?

    So to summarize in economic terms so you can follow my argument. Fossil fuel industries world wide are heavily subsidized because they don’t have to pay for their pollution. The people who will pay for the rich fossil fuel industry polluters you support, will be your grand children, and they will pay with their lives.



    Report abuse

  • 27
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #23 by rizvoid:

    There is so much wrong in these claims that it is difficult to know where to start.

    The scientific consensus is we need to remove the other 95% of our emissions. Neither of the major political parties in Australia are willing to this it would seem. So yes both sides are completely gutless on this.

    Yes, but is it possible to achieve this target?

    Renewable energy in Brazil accounted for more than 85.4% of the domestically produced electricity used in Brazil, according to preliminary data from the 2009 National Energy Balance, conducted by the Energy Research Corporation (EPE).

    Australia is very well placed to make extensive use of Photovoltaic and Solar thermal power, with Thorium nuclear as a future options.

    Concentrated solar thermal is again making the news, with the world’s largest parabolic trough array with thermal storage – opening for business in Arizona

    http://www.solarreserve.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/SolarReserve-Crescent-Dunes-Molten-Salt-Receiver-Assembly-2Apr13-FINAL-pict1.pdf – SANTA MONICA, Calif, April 2, 2013 – SolarReserve, a U.S. developer of large – scale solar power projects, today announced completion of the assembly of the molten salt receiver panels that sits on top of the 540 foot solar power tower for its110 megawatt (MW) Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Plant located near Tonopah,Nev.

    Scientific evidence show that no amount of carbon taxing will achieve that target when we have giant polluters like India and China,

    No it doesn’t. They are indeed producing large quantities of pollution at present, But China is a world leader on production of Solar energy technology, Thorium nuclear research, and increasing hydroelectric power. India has the world’s biggest tidal-tubine farm due to come on line in 2015. India also has the prospect of huge losses of irrigation water due to climate change affecting millions of its people.

    The state of Gujarat in north western India is working actively to exploit its vast resources of wind, solar and tidal energy to establish an international hub for renewable power. With the longest coastline of any Indian state and numerous inshore water management projects, Gujarat has the potential to develop tidal and hydrokinetic energy into substantial contributors to the electricity mix. – http://atlantisresourcesltd.com/projects/india.html

    who are only increasing their pollution as time goes by, and who are refusing to be part of any such scheme.

    This is nonsense. They are both making extensive plans to develop green energy systems.

    If it is not possible to achieve that target, then why bother?

    That is pure fiction, put about by the carbonaceous Luddites.

    Why make low-earners suffer by imposing a useless carbon tax on them just to feel happy and moral?

    To get them to stop wasting energy, and switch to green power sources perhaps??? – If they need to be prodded to get them to move into 21st century technology. There are projections which show green energies will be cheaper in the long term, after the initial change-over costs have been depreciated.

    Why not just accept the fact that we have screwed up the planet beyond repairs, and just sit back and relax?

    That would be incredibly stupid and expensive, when prompt action can greatly reduce the problems and the vast costs of future damage.

    Why feel shame? We all are part of the system.

    The apathetic and obstructive should feel shame! – Time to be active and sort out the system even if we have to make SOME investments in available clean technologies so we can scrap the obsolete polluting power sources and balance the planetary cycles. Many of the green energy systems will cost much the same as the dirtier industrial processes they replace.

    We all did it. No one can blame anyone else.

    So we had better take responsibility and fix it, while penalising the greedy and irresponsible who want to continue to profit from causing damage.



    Report abuse

  • 28
    Marktony says:

    Because I have a child and hope one day he may also. This last statement says a lot more about you than you may have wished to have. I find it hard to believe you could be so callous. …..

    He’s probably waiting on The Rapture.

    In reply to #25 by Reckless Monkey:

    In reply to #23 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #22 by Reckless Monkey:

    In reply to #21 by rizvoid:

    If the Middle East refuses to sell oil, it would be the Middle East going bankrupt first, because the entire economy of the Middle East depends on oil. Oil is their primary export, and their only source of…



    Report abuse

  • 29
    rizvoid says:

    In reply to #26 by David R Allen:

    Your entire argument for not saving your grand children’s life is some rich person won’t make a profit. That is the summary of this entire diatribe.

    Oh I am sorry. I think I have gotten myself into an unfavorable situation here.

    Tell you the truth, I don’t understand most of your post. You are trying to talk to me in economics, and I don’t even understand terms like passing on the cost

    And the posts by Alan and Reckless Monkey are also going in the same direction. I was only talking about some basic economics from the logical standpoint. As in, it is logical to assume this and that because of this and that….

    My argument rests on this simple premise: It is not possible to reverse global warming, and things like carbon taxes are only an ideologue’s dreams. Feel good, be happy, and attaining some sense of moral superiority kind of things. There is BIG difference between taking an idealistic approach and taking a pragmatic approach to solve a problem. I think putting carbon taxes to reduce the effects of global warming is an idealistic approach. But that doesn’t hurt, because we have no pragmatic approach for this problem anyway….



    Report abuse

  • 30
    mmurray says:

    Given how much impact climate change is already having on Australia and how much wind, sun and thorium we have we should be leading the world in reduction and demanding reductions. We should be pounding the desk at every international conference. Did we make any use of our seat on the Security Council ? We should be putting together a consortium of small nations to demand less carbon production from the big nations. We could do all these things but instead we elect Tony Abbott.

    Poor fella my country.

    Michael



    Report abuse

  • 31
    mmurray says:

    In reply to #23 by rizvoid:

    Why not just accept the fact that we have screwed up the planet beyond repairs, and just sit back and relax? Why feel shame? We all are part of the system. We all did it. No one can blame anyone else.

    So no kids I eh ?

    Michael



    Report abuse

  • 33
    phil rimmer says:

    In reply to #32 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #31 by mmurray:

    In reply to #23 by rizvoid:

    So no kids I eh ?

    Michael

    Does it matter? Would it change the facts?

    It’d get you off your lazy butt.



    Report abuse

  • 34
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #29 by rizvoid:

    I was only talking about some basic economics from the logical standpoint.

    No you weren’t you were talking about propagandist nonsense which has nothing to do with the economics of modernising energy production. There is nothing logical about clinging to obsolete polluting technology when clean alternatives are readily available.

    As in, it is logical to assume this and that because of this and that….

    Logic is a deductive process, not a badge which is stuck on to mistaken ideas. Assumption is a common cause of error!

    My argument rests on this simple premise: It is not possible to reverse global warming,

    It is however, almost certain to make it very much worse if no remedial action is taken.

    and things like carbon taxes are only an ideologue’s dreams. Feel good, be happy, and attaining some sense of moral superiority kind of things.

    This is just nonsensical denial of the deterrent effect of taxation in choices made on the basis of cost. Are you seriously saying you would choose to pay more for electricity produced by polluting coal burning, rather than some cheaper wind or solar source?

    Feel good, be happy, and attaining some sense of moral superiority kind of things.

    It is actually morally superior to avoid polluting other people’s living space. – or living in our own squalor, for that matter.

    There is BIG difference between taking an idealistic approach and taking a pragmatic approach to solve a problem.

    There is! – and it is particularly foolish when the ideology of continuing avoidable pollution is being proposed.

    I think putting carbon taxes to reduce the effects of global warming is an idealistic approach. But that doesn’t hurt, because we have no pragmatic approach for this problem anyway….

    You have it totally backwards. Carbon taxes will not hurt those pursuing modernisation of energy production. It will penalise the backward-looking polluters who will not plan for the future. There is no reason (other than ignorance and mental backwardness) why modern solar thermal generators cannot replace old coal systems in Australia. (see links @27).

    In the UK carbonaceous Cameron is abolishing the “green levy” on energy producers. That is the green levy which subsidised the upgrading of the insulation on my house, and considerably reduced my fuel bills.

    However at the behest of the pro-pollution lobby this scheme of subsidising pollution-reduction by reducing the waste of energy has now been abandoned. The muppet media claimed that the “green levy” was increasing gas bills, but the data showed that 4/5s of the increases were due to profiteering by energy companies.

    Doing nothing because you like to pretend nothing can be done, is a very poor strategy.

    It is also an example of middle-east stupidity, that oil money is being “invested” in millionaire tourist resorts, when the deserts could provide vast solar energy resources.



    Report abuse

  • 35
    rizvoid says:

    In reply to #33 by phil rimmer:

    In reply to #32 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #31 by mmurray:

    In reply to #23 by rizvoid:

    So no kids I eh ?

    Michael

    Does it matter? Would it change the facts?

    It’d get you off your lazy butt.

    Yeah? Would that save the planet?



    Report abuse

  • 36
    rizvoid says:

    In reply to #34 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #29 by rizvoid:

    You have it totally backwards. Carbon taxes will not hurt those pursuing modernisation of energy production. It will penalise the backward-looking polluters who will not plan for the future. There is no reason (other than ignorance and mental backwardness) why modern solar thermal generators cannot replace old coal systems in Australi

    Alan, Carbon taxes will also penalize those low-earners who can’t afford to pay these taxes, who can’t afford to buy green energy and can’t afford to buy hybrid and electric cars. Why aren’t you thinking about them? You are talking about India making a switch to renewable energy?. Do you know India can’t generate enough electricity already? That power outages are quite a common occurrence in India? A country that can’t produce the electricity it needs even when it has heaps of high quality coal, lots of rivers, … will switch to renewable energy? 1.2 billion people, most of whom do not even know what renewable energy is, what global warming is, and how they are making the planet warmer, will turn to renewable sources of energy? In what world?



    Report abuse

  • 37
    Nordic11 says:

    Wow Lots of gloom and doom on this thread.

    First as has been stated, humans can’t evolve their way out of climate change; they can only adapt.

    Second the question is whether or not our modern, global society can adapt and continue on in the face of climate change, or will it collapse leaving random bands of humans to survive a post apocalyptic world. Hollywood had conditioned us to think in apocalyptic terms, but our system of governments and global economy might be much more resilient and adaptable than we all think. The year 2100 seems to be the deadline for the apocalypse, but this is not based upon hard data.

    Third, never underestimate the effect of a cataclysmic event on the human psyche. Pearl Harbor awoke an American war machine the Japanese never imagined could happen. If the Arctic melts completely one summer and struggles to freeze back in the winter, we could see dramatic policy changes if that one event threatens our money and life style. All the technologies exists to solve this problem in less than a year if everyone is scared enough.

    Last, climatologists are still not certain what more CO2 in the atmosphere will mean. We know 200 ppm meant an ice age; 300 ppm caused a warming period, and the current 400 ppm is creating the first signs of global changes, but will 500-600 ppm cause the extreme effects on the hot side that 200 did on the cold side? We still don’t know. Of course it’s stupid to blindly take such a risk, but if humans do not curb their carbon emissions, it may mean just more degradation of the planet instead of cataclysmic disaster.



    Report abuse

  • 39
    justinesaracen says:

    “In the long term it has been suggested in a recent publication that rats will be the ultimate survivors.”

    Rats, possibly, since they are a global species and seem very adaptable. I’d say insects, particularly roaches and their cousins will thrive too. The larger mammals high on the food chain, unlikely.

    Yes, the rich will survive for a very long time on the basis of their wealth and ability to offset hardship by buying higher ground, scarce food, etc. But wealth is ephemeral and when the disaster lasts in the millions of years, it will count for nothing.



    Report abuse

  • 40
    justinesaracen says:

    Rizvoid, The “Oh, shucks. Things are sooo bad, we can’t possibly remedy them in time. Let’s go have a beer” argument is just plain lazy
    and, since it is widely held by people like yourself, it is one of the reasons that the remedies that do exist are hard to implement. Why do you even engage in a discussion if your point is, let’s not bother to discuss it?



    Report abuse

  • 41
    phil rimmer says:

    In reply to #35 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #33 by phil rimmer:

    In reply to #32 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #31 by mmurray:

    In reply to #23 by rizvoid:

    So no kids I eh ?

    Michael

    Yeah? Would that save the planet?

    If you had kids it may lead you to give a damn about them and their kids, perhaps enough to cut your carbon footprint 10 or 20%. Its not hard. I cut mine steadily over the last five years by at least that amount. My heating bill has halved with proper insulation. My lighting bill has gone down 75% and shortly (with new LED lamps) will have fallen a total of 90% with no loss in quality and a renewed ability to dim and add absence detection for even further energy savings. My aging car will be replaced soon. Its turbo diesel 1600cc at 60mpg was twice as efficient as the 2200cc petrol engined vehicle it replaced. On retiring it, in the next year, I will select a 1100cc three cylinder vehicle with auto stop start of the engine. It should get me 88mpg.

    Your choice too, now, if you care.

    Imagine if most people gave a similar damn? Those with kids may be the one’s more likely too. They just need to know they have choices.



    Report abuse

  • 42
    Alan4discussion says:

    I am reminded of the denialist claims when legislation was brought in to reduce industrial pollution of air (UK Clean Air Act), and river pollution by chemicals and untreated sewage.

    Perhaps a little poetry?
    Here’s the last verse and a chorus of a protest song which I wrote around 1970:-

    When the sea is all poisoned, the rivers all rotten, the air is quite caustic –
    That could be quite soon,
    Don’t worry about it, That’s counter-productive,
    By then we’ll be ready to live on the Moon!

    CHORUS

    There’s holes in the mountains, Roads in the valleys,
    There’s muck in the rivers, and oil in the sea,
    Fortunes were waiting, For men who took them,
    and only the debris is waiting for me!



    Report abuse

  • 43
    Red Dog says:

    The notion that human evolution will somehow be a work around for climate change reflects a basic misunderstanding about how evolution works. Any evolutionary change takes many generations to take effect. Also, the problems from climate change (at least what we know so far) aren’t going to be the kind that conceivable adaptations would help address much.

    We will still need clean air and water and decent food. It’s possible we could adapt to easily deal with more extreme temperatures I guess but that would take many generations (i.e. hundreds of years) at an absolute minimum and even that wouldn’t address all the problems. So just like fantasies about space colonization speculation about evolution is pointless when it comes to climate change.

    As to the person who argued “why bother what I do won’t save the world” people have been using excuses like that for as long as there has been participatory democracy and that is all it is is an excuse to be lazy. Of course what any one person does won’t make that much of a difference. But if we all get off our butts, if we would spend a little less time writing BS comments on web sites and a little more time actually doing something meaningful it absolutely would make a difference. It’s people who are educated and understand science who have the most potential to make real change and also the most responsibility to do something. That is the way change has happened all through history, look at the US civil rights movement or the gay rights movement, it was a lot of individuals who decided enough was enough and got off their butts and they absolutely did make a difference.

    As to the argument that it’s too late, well yes it is. It’s been too late to stop or completely reverse climate change for a long time. But that doesn’t mean the rational thing to do is just give up. Climate change isn’t a binary switch that either happens or doesn’t it’s a continuous process. The question now isn’t can we stop climate change, we know that we can’t and it’s already happening the question is when do we start doing something about it so that the effects are only say really bad as opposed to catastrophic. That is still an open question and one where people who give a damn should get involved.

    BTW, on another topic this is why I find all the endless stupid jokes about theists so pointless. I know plenty of theists who do more than I do on environmental issues. Those people are my friends and allies and I don’t mock them as “faith heads”. I have more in common and far more respect for those people than for the lazy fools on this site who happen to be atheists but who also revel in their ignorance and cynicism about climate change.



    Report abuse

  • 44
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #43 by Red Dog:

    The notion that human evolution will somehow be a work around for climate change reflects a basic misunderstanding about how evolution works. Any evolutionary change takes many generations to take effect. Also, the problems from climate change (at least what we know so far) aren’t going to be the kind that conceivable adaptations would help address much.

    Welcome to the all encompassing, post mass-extinction, bacterial inhabitants of future Earth??????



    Report abuse

  • 45
    phil rimmer says:

    In reply to #36 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #34 by Alan4discussion:

    A country that can’t produce the electricity it needs even when it has heaps of high quality coal, lots of rivers, … will switch to renewable energy?

    Oh, yes! The issue is that of infrastructure, a deficit of roads, railtrack and grid supply. The energy industry in the developed countries has long been looking at ideas like “distributed generation”, “embedded generation” and tactics like Co-Generation and Combined Heat and Power. These techniques which are mostly not applicable to the transportation demands of coal are being considered as ways of creating robust supply scenarios without the grievous burden of heavy infrastructure demands and its maintenance and upgrading.

    Solar PV and Thermal suit this lower infrastructure demand as the solar flux is (in the case of India) pretty much pan-national, and apart from needing open spaces (not a problem in India) can be situated close to demand.

    Most of my work is in this eco area of energy supply and efficient use. Many (ok 3) of my/our (I wear a few hats) clients, customers and suppliers are international Indian owned companies and conglomerates. They are amongst the most visionary people in the field because they have an energy and infrastructure deficit, but they know also that by becoming masters of these technologies they are creating the most attractive technologies that will be needed everywhere.

    I wish I could tell you about the most exciting stuff (integrating many functions into building materials, for instance) that will allow hospitals and factories, offices and shops to be planted in areas that have poor infrastructure provision, but I can’t. (Well in no more detail than this.) These are not quite “off grid” but may yet get there. (In any case full off grid is achieved at much reduced cost using say micro-turbines and green gas from local farmers or a sewage works.) This will raise local living standards rapidly and at a fraction the cost. These “Microgrids”, conferring near or actual local energy autonomy, are hugely robust too.

    An Indian company may well come and raise your local living standards one day.

    From this-

    2012 Indian Blackout

    Some technology sources and USAID proposed that another widespread outage could be prevented by integrated network of microgrids and distributed generation connected seamlessly with the main grid via a superior smart grid technology which includes automated fault detection, islanding and self-healing of the network.

    A view is now that microgrid islands can precede any substantial networking work, which anyway can be greatly down-specced in capacity.



    Report abuse

  • 46
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #36 by rizvoid:

    You have it totally backwards. Carbon taxes will not hurt those pursuing modernisation of energy production. It will penalise the backward-looking polluters who will not plan for the future. There is no reason (other than ignorance an…

    In reply to #34 by Alan4discussion:

    Alan, Carbon taxes will also penalize those low-earners who can’t afford to pay these taxes, who can’t afford to buy green energy and can’t afford to buy hybrid and electric cars. Why aren’t you thinking about them?

    Why should anyone ASSUME green energy will be more expensive than coal in the future? There is no evidence for this. It is just being put about by those profiting from carbon industries. It is the initial set-up costs of new systems which is being argued about, but this is grossly misrepresented in the media. The subsidies for oil and gas exploration and rigs are vastly greater than green subsidies.

    You are talking about India making a switch to renewable energy?. Do you know India can’t generate enough electricity already? That power outages are quite a common occurrence in India?

    All the more reason for local generation systems from solar power. India has plenty of sunshine.

    A country that can’t produce the electricity it needs even when it has heaps of high quality coal, lots of rivers, … will switch to renewable energy?

    They will either do so, or will be forced to do so by the climate. There are confident predictions that their large rivers will decrease as the planet warms depriving them of irrigation water and hydroelectric power. Burning coal is making their prospects worse all the time it continues.
    Millions who depend on irrigation water for farming are at risk of starvation in future.

    1.2 billion people, most of whom do not even know what renewable energy is, what global warming is, and how they are making the planet warmer, will turn to renewable sources of energy? In what world?

    They will know what increased water shortages, famines and more flash floods are, if they don’t get to grips with this.

    However as I have already pointed out, some Indian states are taking matters seriously, and are developing tidal, and wind power in addition to local solar. !

    The head-in-the-sand approach is not going to produce solutions. Indians have plenty of TV channels, so information can be communicated to them.



    Report abuse

  • 47
    Timothy McNamara says:

    To think, there’s a lot of people out there… who still think the status quo is tenable.

    “What delicious ignorant bliss it must be. I can’t remember being in such a state.”

    That is what I thought, when reminded here, as I routinely am, that a vast majority have no grasp of the reality David R Allen and Alan4discussion outline here. AKA “reality”.

    Its bizarre reading questions or comments about whether “humans will survive climate change”. Akin to asking, “Will the gunman survive the massacre he’s currently engaged in?”



    Report abuse

  • 48
    inquisador says:

    In reply to #42 by Alan4discussion:

    I am reminded of the denialist claims when legislation was brought in to reduce industrial pollution of air (UK Clean Air Act), and river pollution by chemicals and untreated sewage.

    Perhaps a little poetry?
    Here’s the last verse and a chorus of a protest song which I wrote around 1970:-

    Not bad, Alan.

    You had an excellent example to give you inspiration, as you surely know. A spoonful of humour to help the message go down.



    Report abuse

  • 49
    canadian_right says:

    Sure, more air conditioning.

    Global climate change will be a disaster for poor people – not rich people. The rich can afford whatever technology is required to live comfortably, or move to somewhere nicer. Maybe after 10,000 years or so humans in general might evolve to like higher temperatures, but climate change will take hundreds of years while the quickest we have seen humans evolve a new feature, say digesting milk, is about ten thousand years.



    Report abuse

  • 50
    rizvoid says:

    In reply to #46 by Alan4discussion:

    Why should anyone ASSUME green energy will be more expensive than coal in the future? There is no evidence for this. It is just being put about by those profiting from carbon industries. It is the initial set-up costs of new systems which is being argued about, but this is grossly misrepresented in the media. The subsidies for oil and gas exploration and rigs are vastly greater than green subsidies.

    I am not talking about the future, Alan. I am talking about the present. I don’t know how things are where you live, but here in Australia, green energy is more expensive, hybrids and electric cars are more expensive, recycled products are more expensive, and on and on it goes. When they introduced the carbon tax a couple of years ago, the prices of electricity spiked up. Low earner suffered and are still suffering, for a carbon tax that wasn’t going to have any meaningful impact on the climate. It was a feel good and do the right thing kind of tax. We don’t need that. This is living in denial. We need to accept the facts. That’s my point.

    They will either do so, or will be forced to do so by the climate. There are confident predictions that their large rivers will decrease as the planet warms depriving them of irrigation water and hydroelectric power. Burning coal is making their prospects worse all the time it continues. Millions who depend on irrigation water for farming are at risk of starvation in future.

    They can’t do it. They have not got the resources and the money to do this. India is a very poor country. According to an estimate, around 5,000 babies die in India everyday because of disease, poverty and all the similar kinds of things. A country that can’t save its babies, and doesn’t ever care much about saving them, is going to make a switch to renewable energy to save the planet? Again, in what universe? They recently sent a probe to Mars I think. Spent billions of dollars on it. Yet they have children dying due to preventable causes. They have little money, and they waste it for show off purposes. And I think showing the world that they are some kind of leader in renewable energy generation is also one of those show off things this country displays so nicely…
    http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-11-20/india/28087652_1_child-mortality-mortality-rate-cent



    Report abuse

  • 51
    David R Allen says:

    In reply to #49 by canadian_right:

    Sure, more air conditioning.

    Global climate change will be a disaster for poor people – not rich people. The rich can afford whatever technology is required to live comfortably, or move to somewhere nicer. Maybe after 10,000 years or so humans in general might evolve to like higher temperatures, bu…

    I’m not so sure that the rich will be the last ones standing. The rich will do ok in the short term. They’ll buy bigger horse power air conditioners that burn more carbon, which will heat up the earth, then repeat the chorus again. In a worst case scenario of civilization breakdown all the gold and US dollars will be worthless. The people with skills to survive on a 1 acre plot with a few goats will be the kings. They will have the skills and will inherit the scorched earth.

    In response to Alan.

    Why should anyone ASSUME green energy will be more expensive than coal in the future?

    The burning of fossil fuel is subsidized by the fact that they don’t have to pay for the pollution they produce. These costs are not passed on to the customers making fossil fuels very cheap. Renewables can almost complete now, but the moment the cost of fossil fuel pollution is passed on to consumers, renewables will win hands down. What is the cost of fossil fuel pollution. Can we put a dollar price on a livable planet. How much is the life of my grandson worth. This is a no brainer. If you want to use gasoline in your SUV you should be paying around $20 per litre. If you want to use coal fired electricity you should be paying triple the cost of wind and solar power. Put a world price on carbon and in ten years, the world won’t be burning carbon.



    Report abuse

  • 52
    rizvoid says:

    In reply to #51 by David R Allen:

    In reply to #49 by canadian_right:

    This is a no brainer. If you want to use gasoline in your SUV you should be paying around $20 per litre. If you want to use coal fired electricity you should be paying triple the cost of wind and solar power. Put a world price on carbon and in ten years, the world won’t be burning carbon

    Anarchy, riots, civil disobedience and all that come to mind if people were forced to pay $20 a liter for petrol to save the planet…And you know what? We are not going to have any Police to protect us, because the Police would be leading the riots.

    I would love to see the Police in electric or hybrid cars. For the first time, they would driving 50hp 0-100 in 2 minutes cars, and I would be driving a ….



    Report abuse

  • We can’t physically evolve with climate change but we have already evolved to be able to adapt to different environments – as a species.



    Report abuse

  • 54
    Reckless Monkey says:

    In reply to #29 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #26 by David R Allen:

    Tell you the truth, I don’t understand most of your post. You are trying to talk to me in economics, and I don’t even understand terms like passing on the cost…

    Yes I do the fossil fuel industry has been passing on the real cost to people. The record drought we endured for many years here in Australia recently that was likely in part due to rise in global temperatures has cost me in my town a massive rates bill (doubled) as we pay a pipeline to be put into Brisbanes water supply. The roads all over Queensland are still being re-build after the massive flooding which yes did re-fill our damns but wiped out our roads and took many lives right here in my town. Where is my check in the mail from the coal industry? No they have bloody well passed on the cost already. And what does our state government do after the flooding give millions to the coal industry to get it up and running again more quickly! I would like them to clean up their act before it costs me any more. Now I live in a rich Western Nation we can afford it (for now). But you keep going on about the cost to the poor around the world, how do they afford to get water to drink when their water supplies dry up? How do they re-build when instead of a gentle flow of ice melt from the Himalayas they instead get flash flooding wiping out their towns? Do you think the coal industry has a fund set aside for fixing these problems? The reality of this situation is the real cost of our choices includes the environment impacts of our actions and if we just choose to not write it down on the balance sheet we are trying to do economics with a blindfold on.

    My argument rests on this simple premise: It is not possible to reverse global warming, and things like carbon taxes are only an ideologue’s dreams. Feel good, be happy, and attaining some sense of moral superiority kind of things.

    Simple and flawed. It is possible to reverse global warming but not for a long time as the oceans are storing the heat and CO2 and will take hundreds of years to spit it back into the atmosphere. Our responsibility is to do more than survive but also to allow future generations to survive. Carbon taxes, emission trading schemes are parts of a large picture. Once Australia had a vision to become something the Snowy River Hydro Scheme is a good example of governments doing something that would not see results until outside the election cycle. Both sides of politics could see a need and were prepared to do something about it. Our current lot are either too afraid to have a good go a convincing the public of the need (Labour) so they act in little spits and starts. While Liberal Government is still lying to Australia about the basic science! Local governments can make local decisions to clean up their own act they can put in locally a solar thermal or wind farm. Nationally if we had any balls we’d invest heavily in shifting all our grid away from coal and shift to a distributed alternative model and economically it will have paid for itself in short order because once made the only cost is maintenance, now we have to keep digging toxic crap out of the ground ruining farmland, risking our water table for what so we can keep paying for stuff that will eventually run out anyway. Like it or not we will have to stop using fossil fuels because they are not being made as fast as we are using them. This is not about me feeling morally superior its about my families damn survival and I a bit sick of people refusing to face actual facts.



    Report abuse

  • 55
    David R Allen says:

    In reply to #52 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #51 by David R Allen:

    In reply to #49 by canadian_right:

    This is a no brainer. If you want to use gasoline in your SUV you should be paying around $20 per litre. If you want to use coal fired electricity you should be paying triple the cost of wind and solar power. Put a world price on…

    You may think this is a joke Rizvoid, but this is deadly serious. If I came to your house and threatened you, or threatened your children or grand children with death or serious injury. What would you do. Think about it for a second. I’m pounding on your front door and I have an axe. What are you going to do. Your first call would be to the police and you would fight me tooth and nail to protect your children. I would represent a clear and present danger to your safety, right at that time.

    You represent a clear and present danger to my children and grand children. You threaten them with death or serious injury, not today, but in 50 years time. How should I react to you, and the global warming deniers that think that US dollars are worth more than my grand children’s lives. I will defend my family, just like you. Today, I do it with words in a blog about science and reason against you, a person who does not understand science and demonstrations lack of reason.

    But what of tomorrow. When enough Hurricanes and tornadoes have smashed America. When floods and extreme cold events are killing millions. When Bangladesh is under water. When people are dying in the tropics because they cannot efficiently sweat. What will the people or reason and science, like me, be doing. What will they feel about people who espouse the views you do and brought us to this catastrophe..

    At that time my dear friend, you will hope and pray that the police will come to protect you in the electric car. And for you to insinuate that you would flee police in your SUV after committing crime, only exacerbates you tenuous hold on respect within this forum.



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #52 by rizvoid:

    I would love to see the Police in electric or hybrid cars. For the first time, they would driving 50hp 0-100 in 2 minutes cars, and I would be driving a ….

    I’d like to see all fleet cars being either hybrid or eventually fully electric. I’d like to see politicians squeeze more than one passenger in each chauffeur driven luxury car when they attend meetings. It would be a start and who knows, might even provide a role model for the rest of the community.

    These are really small measures considering the gravity of the situation. Every country in the world needs to cooperate in this task.



    Report abuse

  • 57
    David R Allen says:

    In reply to #54 by Reckless Monkey:

    In reply to #29 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #26 by David R Allen:

    Tell you the truth, I don’t understand most of your post. You are trying to talk to me in economics, and I don’t even understand terms like passing on the cost…

    Yes I do the fossil fuel industry has been passing on the real cost to p…

    I don’t just “Like” this post. I love it. Rizvoid, you can continue on your present course in face over overwhelming evidence that debunks your position, or, if you are a rational evidence based person, see that you are obviously wrong on all counts, admit that you are wrong and get off you QWERTY and start agitating for a stop to carbon burning. The choice is yours. Respect or ridicule.



    Report abuse

  • 58
    phil rimmer says:

    In reply to #50 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #46 by Alan4discussion:

    According to an estimate, around 5,000 babies die in India everyday because of disease, poverty and all the similar kinds of things.

    Their current population is 1.23 billion

    A country that can’t save its babies, and doesn’t ever care much about saving them,

    Crass and unwarranted. The inward investment needed to bring 1.23 billion people up to the best standards of the developed world would be many…many trillions of dollars. (Imagine the infra structure investment each citizen in the developed world has allocated against them, individually and collectively in hospitals, education, roads, utilities, industries, agriculture, defence, contingency. Will a thousand dollars sort all your life’s needs out? Two thousand? Ten? And next year?) Do some sums.

    It all needs doing and whilst it may seem callous not to concentrate of saving babies first last and always, making the money to save babies and build hospitals and train doctors is high priority too and in total babies saved, will certainly be the morally winning strategy.

    Wealth creation and sustainable wealth creation is what is called for. I’ve indicated why coal is not the answer for India, when investment in other energy sources can bypass the infrastructure bottleneck.

    Come on, we need to outgrow our primitive hunter gatherer approach to energy capture. We need to farm the stuff to stabilise our future and insure against catastrophe. The luddities need to see the rate of change and understand the flipping point is now.



    Report abuse

  • 59
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #50 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #46 by Alan4discussion:

    Why should anyone ASSUME green energy will be more expensive than coal in the future? There is no evidence for this. It is just being put about by those profiting from carbon industries. It is the initial set-up costs of new systems which is being argued about, …

    I am not talking about the future, Alan. I am talking about the present.

    So am I. I am also taliking about the past achievements of those who make an effort. – Australia has plenty of land and could go for biofuels to greatly reduce its carbon footprint.

    Ethanol fuel in Brazil
    Brazil is the world’s second largest producer of ethanol fuel, and until 2010, the world’s largest exporter. Together, Brazil and the United States lead the industrial production of ethanol fuel, accounting together for 87.8 percent of the world’s production in 2010,[1][2] and 87.1 percent in 2011.[3] In 2011 Brazil produced 21.1 billion liters (5.57 billion U.S. liquid gallons), representing 24.9 percent of the world’s total ethanol used as fuel.[3]

    Brazil is considered to have the world’s first sustainable biofuels economy and the biofuel industry leader,[4][5][6][7] a policy model for other countries; and its sugarcane ethanol “the most successful alternative fuel to date.

    I don’t know how things are where you live, but here in Australia, green energy is more expensive, hybrids and electric cars are more expensive, recycled products are more expensive, and on and on it goes.

    You don’t seem to get it! The cost of bush-fires, floods, cyclones/hurricanes and other storm damage, droughts, loss of crops etc is vastly greater than a slight increase in fuel cost for cars.

    When they introduced the carbon a couple of years ago, the prices of electricity spiked up. Low earner suffered and are still suffering, for a carbon tax that wasn’t going to have any meaningful impact on the climate.

    Electricity and gas prices have been “spiking up” world wide, regardless of carbon taxes.

    It was a feel good and do the right thing kind of tax. We don’t need that.

    You feel emotional about it and don’t like investing in a better future. The climate does not care how you feel! Neither does the physics of climate change!

    This is living in denial. We need to accept the facts. That’s my point.

    You don’t see the irony of your denial stance and refusal to recognise the realities!

    They can’t do it. They have not got the resources and the money to do this. India is a very poor country. According to an estimate, around 5,000 babies die in India everyday because of disease, poverty and all the similar kinds of things. A country that can’t save its babies, and doesn’t ever care much about saving them, is going to make a switch to renewable energy to save the planet?

    As I pointed our, It has already started setting up renewable energy systems

    Again, in what universe?

    You seem to think you live on another planet!

    They recently sent a probe to Mars I think. Spent billions of dollars on it.

    Err no! They spent millions of dollars on it as a sales front, to try to get some billions of dollars of business for their profitable space industries.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/01/india-mars-idUSL2N0JG0IM20131201

    India’s mission showcases the country’s cheap technology, encouraging hopes it could capture more of the $304-billion global space market, which includes launching satellites for other countries, analysts say.

    “Given its cost-effective technology, India is attractive,” said Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan, an expert on space security at the Observer Research Foundation think-tank in Delhi.

    India’s low-cost Mars mission has a price tag of 4.5 billion rupees ($73 million), just over one-tenth of the cost of NASA’s latest mission there, which launched on Nov. 18.

    You seem to really love putting a negative spin on constructive efforts to to improve communications and environmental management.

    Yet they have children dying due to preventable causes.

    Yes they do: – As do many countries with uneducated backwaters in remote parts and unregulated exploitation of sections of the population.

    They have little money, and they waste it for show off purposes. And I think showing the world that they are some kind of leader in renewable energy generation is also one of those show off things this country displays so nicely…

    You really don’t get it! Satellite technology and carbon neutral power for their industries, are the future earners for trading nations. It is only a matter of time before the world starts charging the polluters the true cost of the damage they are doing. Most coal “reserves” will have to be left in the ground, so are worthless. Once the investors work this out, the cabonaceous Luddites will go bust!

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/19/carbon-bubble-financial-crash-crisis
    The world could be heading for a major economic crisis as stock markets inflate an investment bubble in fossil fuels to the tune of trillions of dollars, according to leading economists.

    “The financial crisis has shown what happens when risks accumulate unnoticed,” said Lord (Nicholas) Stern, a professor at the London School of Economics. He said the risk was “very big indeed” and that almost all investors and regulators were failing to address it.

    The so-called “carbon bubble” is the result of an over-valuation of oil, coal and gas reserves held by fossil fuel companies. According to a report published on Friday, at least two-thirds of these reserves will have to remain underground if the world is to meet existing internationally agreed targets to avoid the threshold for “dangerous” climate change. If the agreements hold, these reserves will be in effect unburnable and so worthless – leading to massive market losses. But the stock markets are betting on countries’ inaction on climate change.

    The stark report is by Stern and the thinktank Carbon Tracker. Their warning is supported by organisations including HSBC, Citi, Standard and Poor’s and the International Energy Agency. The Bank of England has also recognised that a collapse in the value of oil, gas and coal assets as nations tackle global warming is a potential systemic risk to the economy, with London being particularly at risk owing to its huge listings of coal.

    Stern said that far from reducing efforts to develop fossil fuels, the top 200 companies spent $674bn (£441bn) in 2012 to find and exploit even more new resources, a sum equivalent to 1% of global GDP, which could end up as “stranded” or valueless assets.

    Stern’s landmark 2006 report on the economic impact of climate change – commissioned by the then chancellor, Gordon Brown – concluded that spending 1% of GDP would pay for a transition to a clean and sustainable economy.

    So we could have a transition to a clean sustainable economy for the same 1% of the GDP. which is being “invested” in new worthless carbon reserves.

    The world’s governments have agreed to restrict the global temperature rise to 2C, beyond which the impacts become severe and unpredictable. But Stern said the investors clearly did not believe action to curb climate change was going to be taken. “They can’t believe that and also believe that the markets are sensibly valued now.”

    “They only believe environmental regulation when they see it,” said James Leaton, from Carbon Tracker and a former PwC consultant. He said short-termism in financial markets was the other major reason for the carbon bubble. “Analysts say you should ride the train until just before it goes off the cliff. Each thinks they are smart enough to get off in time, but not everyone can get out of the door at the same time. That is why you get bubbles and crashes.”

    Paul Spedding, an oil and gas analyst at HSBC, said: “The scale of ‘listed’ unburnable carbon revealed in this report is astonishing. This report makes it clear that ‘business as usual’ is not a viable option for the fossil fuel industry in the long term. [The market] is assuming it will get early warning, but my worry is that things often happen suddenly in the oil and gas sector.”

    HSBC warned that 40-60% of the market capitalisation of oil and gas companies was at risk from the carbon bubble, with the top 200 fossil fuel companies alone having a current value of $4tn, along with $1.5tn debt.

    Lord McFall, who chaired the Commons Treasury select committee for a decade, said: “Despite its devastating scale, the banking crisis was at its heart an avoidable crisis: the threat of significant carbon writedown has the unmistakable characteristics of the same endemic problems.”

    The report calculates that the world’s currently indicated fossil fuel reserves equate to 2,860bn tonnes of carbon dioxide, but that just 31% could be burned for an 80% chance of keeping below a 2C temperature rise. For a 50% chance of 2C or less, just 38% could be burned.



    Report abuse

  • 60
    rizvoid says:

    In reply to #55 by David R Allen:

    In reply to #52 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #51 by David R Allen:

    You represent a clear and present danger to my children and grand children. You threaten them with death or serious injury, not today, but in 50 years time. How should I react to you, and the global warming deniers that think that US dollars are worth more than my grand children’s lives. I will defend my family, just like you. Today, I do it with words in a blog about science and reason against you, a person who does not understand science and demonstrations lack of reason.

    I am not denying global warming. Not at all. I am saying it is all very real. In fact, so real and intense it is that nothing we can do will reverse it, or even slow it down in a meaningful manner. That’s what I am saying. Just try to understand the point before getting all emotional on this site of reason and science. If you think my arguments are a danger to your grandchildren, then I am done arguing with you. Sorry to cause the trouble. Have a nice day!



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #12 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #10 by David R Allen:

    Australia, and Australians are now an embarrassment around the world in the fight against global warming. A new right wing conservative government has just been elected by Australians. Their first act was to repeal a carbon tax. The Prime Minister is on record as s…

    As a country and by land area Australia’s contribution to climate change is negligible (far less than 3rd world countries such Indonesia and many African States). Australia could immediately revert to a stoneage economy and there would no measurable effect on the progress of anthropogenic climate change. The idea that Australia should ‘lead by example’ to show the rest of the world how it should be done is ludicrous. I deplore climate change deniers as much as any sensible person but wearing an economic ‘hair shirt’ is pointless and the crazy logic involved weakens the case for climate change in the public debate. The Carbon Tax was introduced by a scientifically illiterate government in an attempt to appear ‘green’ in the Australian media. The current government is much worse, in the sense that they deny that climate change is even happening (I wonder how many of them are secretly buying up properties away from Australia’s imperilled coastline). If there is anyway out of this environmental mess its by using science, not economics, superstition or appealing to the lowest common denominator in society (=popular opinion). As a small developed country Australia’s role in the global climate change issue is to help develop good relevant science. With an apparently anti-science government in place that opportunity seems to be languishing.



    Report abuse

  • 62
    Alan4discussion says:

    Here is a selection of good reasons why you should ensure your pension fund is NOT invested in carbon “reserves”!

    How your pension is being used in a $6 trillion climate gamble
    Bill McKibben and Jeremy Leggett: Fossil fuel companies’ bet that climate agreements won’t stop them from burning carbon puts pension funds at risk.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/apr/19/countries-exposed-carbon-bubble-map

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/19/fossil-fuels-sub-prime-mervyn-king
    The huge reserves of coal, oil and gas held by companies listed in the City of London are “sub-prime” assets posing a systemic risk to economic stability, a high-profile coalition of investors, politicians and scientists has warned Bank of England’s governor, Sir Mervyn King.

    In an open letter on Thursday, they tell King that the global drive to reduce carbon emissions could mean billions of pounds of fossil fuel reserves will rapidly lose value and cause a “major problem” for institutional investors and pension funds.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/19/fossil-fuels-and-vested-interests
    >

    The ever-inflating “carbon bubble” is only part of the bigger picture, because most of the world’s fuel – around three-quarters in total and almost all the oil and gas – is owned not by listed companies but by governments. And we don’t need only to stop expanding the world’s fossil fuel reserves; we also need to get used to the idea that we can’t burn most of what we already have.

    That is a much trickier problem, because with Carbon Tracker’s detailed analysis and growing awareness of the carbon bubble, investors will surely soon start waking up to the madness of putting capital into expanding fuel reserves. But there’s little self-interest – only planetary interest – in leaving existing fuel assets in the ground.

    The need to write off existing reserves shines a revealing light on global climate politics, because when you map out the world’s fossil fuel reserves, a striking correlation emerges between the amount of carbon a country has in the ground and its keenness for – or resistance to – a global climate deal.



    Report abuse

  • 63
    phil rimmer says:

    In reply to #60 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #55 by David R Allen:
    :

    I am saying it is all very real. In fact, so real and intense it is that nothing we can do will reverse it, or even slow it down in a meaningful manner.

    This is equally unwarranted and useless…

    We’re not all going to die. Whatever our future is, we need to stabilise it and make it innately sustainable.



    Report abuse

  • 64
    David R Allen says:

    In reply to #60 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #55 by David R Allen:

    In reply to #52 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #51 by David R Allen:

    You represent a clear and present danger to my children and grand children. You threaten them with death or serious injury, not today, but in 50 years time. How should I react to you, and the global wa…

    So you’ve taken your bat and ball away in a huff and won’t talk to me. You say you believe in climate change. What are you personally doing about it. Have you install enough PV to not only account for your domestic electricity usage, but also the fuel you burn in your car and the incidental carbon you expend, say, buying a shirt on a whim, then throwing it away. Do you wear your clothes till they are no longer presentable in public. Do you then put them in a box to wear while you do your gardening and house maintenance. Are you a slave of fashion. Do you buy green electricity at a higher price. Do you buy anything, that you don’t need to survive today. Do you recycle everything you can. Have you installed insulation. Have you changed all your light bulbs over. Do you switch your appliances off at the wall. Have you installed rainwater tanks. Do you take the bus or train to work. Do you walk to the supermarket. Do you boycott Coles and Woolies. Do you refuse to donate any money to News Corp by not buying Foxtel and newspapers from a denier.

    How much person pain are you undertaking to limit the damage. How is your moral compass. Can you stand proudly before us and claim the moral high ground. A person of outstanding ethical status. Are you a good person for the planet and your grand children. Are you encouraging everyone you know, through every means at your disposal, like this blog, to stop carbon burning.

    Until you can tick all of the above, and thousands of more activities, you’re not doing enough.



    Report abuse

  • 65
    David R Allen says:

    In reply to #60 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #55 by David R Allen:

    In reply to #52 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #51 by David R Allen:

    You represent a clear and present danger to my children and grand children. You threaten them with death or serious injury, not today, but in 50 years time. How should I react to you, and the global wa…

    Oh I forgot. The most powerful thing you can do is vote. Do you vote for a politician, not a party, that believes the science of climate change, and will act to limit the carnage. If you don’t vote for that person, then your ethical and moral stance is in tatters.



    Report abuse

  • 66
    rizvoid says:

    In reply to #64 by David R Allen:

    So you’ve taken your bat and ball away in a huff and won’t talk to me.

    No, not that. Actually, your previous post gave me the impression that I might be sending out the wrong kind of signals to you. In that case, I think the best action to take is to end the argument instead of creating more conflicts and misunderstandings.

    How much person pain are you undertaking to limit the damage. How is your moral compass. Can you stand proudly before us and claim the moral high ground. A person of outstanding ethical status. Are you a good person for the planet and your grand children. Are you encouraging everyone you know, through every means at your disposal, like this blog, to stop carbon burning.

    Until you can tick all of the above, and thousands of more activities, you’re not doing enough.

    No, I can’t tick all of them. And this is where I think I am unable to explain myself properly to you.

    I can’t tick all of them because I believe it won’t make the slightest difference on the climate whether I do all of these things or I don’t.

    For instance, if I buy a hybrid car from Toyota, then I have to take into account that Toyota produces only a fraction of hybrid cars as compared to the cars that run on fossil fuels. Buy a hybrid car from a manufacture that only produces hybrid cars made only from 100 percent recycled materials, and all of its manufacturing machines run on energy from renewable sources and are made from 100 percent recycled materials, then we can talk about buying a hybrid car to save the planet. Otherwise, we can buy a hybrid car to feel morally superior, and all that. It’s all good if it makes one happy, but it is not going to make the slightest difference on the climate. That’s what I think. So, having said this, I believe, these green energy schemes, green cars, green this and that, these are all designed to make people happy, and sell products of course. Take into account how much politics, economics, money making, and how little science, is involved in these schemes, then we can all see quite clearly how childish all of these things really are. Sorry to be blunt, but that’s how I really feel about all of it.We don’t live in the real world. We live in our fantasies.



    Report abuse

  • 67
    David R Allen says:

    In reply to #66 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #64 by David R Allen:

    So you’ve taken your bat and ball away in a huff and won’t talk to me.

    No, not that. Actually, your previous post gave me the impression that I might be sending out the wrong kind of signals to you. In that case, I think the best action to take is to end the argum…

    I give up. You’re on the side of the black hats. You won’t even try.



    Report abuse

  • 68
    Len Walsh says:

    Evie123

    there have been instances where a specific evolving or adapting happened rather quickly, but those events usually still took quite a long time to “happen”. Then again, how quickly we could evolve/are evolving appears to be a difficult thing to predict, so maybe my initial question is flawed.

    On the evidence humans resemble locusts or mice celebrating the local plenty. We’re not very good at seeing the wider picture, despite our unique ability to do so. Our primitive brains imagine enemies everywhere who seek to take advantage of us. Atheism isn’t protective against faith-based beliefs, or religious-right-denialism in this particular instance. Economic illiteracy compounds the problem, whereby the most efficient tool for change is denied. Religious Right doctrine fails to recognize pricing carbon will prompt the quickest wholesale change in behaviour.

    Thanks to David R Allen and the other patient contributors who have tried to defend climate science and to promote reason.

    We don’t need to evolve Evie123. All that is required is some clear thinking and a rational response. Sadly we’re too superstitious for that to occur in a timely fashion. Australia’s education has been deteriorating for many years now and our national contempt for science is reflected in our paranoid government.

    Australia is the bushfire capital of the world, and the only country to avoid using proper fire-bombers, said to be too costly and ineffective. Our fundy PM wants to buy $2.5 Billion worth of radio-controlled model aircraft to guard our borders from hordes of evil-doers who seek to rape our wives and kids. His supporters claim we can’t afford to respect climate science because we’ll be poor if we don’t export coal. They’re functionally insane in the legal sense.



    Report abuse

  • 69
    Len Walsh says:

    In reply to #66 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #64 by David R Allen:

    We don’t live in the real world. We live in our fantasies…

    We don’t rizvoid and you don’t have to either.

    Respect reality, for my grandkids sake.



    Report abuse

  • 70
    Len Walsh says:

    In reply to #61 by rzzz:

    In reply to #12 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #10 by David R Allen:

    The Carbon Tax was introduced by a scientifically illiterate government in an attempt to appear ‘green’ in the Australian media…

    Economic illiteracy is now a national problem too. Anti-science slogans have triumphed over economics. Religious right dogma has it that extreme environmentalism wants to return us to the stone-age. Most Australians don’t realize Abbott gets his climate science directly from Ian Plimer, a Noah’s Ark denying Old Earth Creationist, distilled via Cardinal Pell’s weekly briefings.



    Report abuse

  • 71
    ikinmoore says:

    There is no doubt what so ever that climate change is happening. As a human race we can adapt to it. The one problem about adapting is that Governments around the world do not believe it is happening because it would not bring them money(taxation) via industries and producing by-products which will be dumped into wasteland. Government will ignore it until it is too late. The population of those countries will be lead by these Government and will at the end suffer for it. We are producing idiots who do not look into the future and could not care about the welfare of mother nature. In the next 50 years, the human race will suffer for it. Floods will be a part of our lives. Many countries are suffering now yet nothing has been done because money has not been spend. Good buy cruel world.



    Report abuse

  • 72
    phil rimmer says:

    In reply to #66 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #64 by David R Allen:

    Buy a hybrid car from a manufacture that only produces hybrid cars made only from 100 percent recycled materials, and all of its manufacturing machines run on energy from renewable sources and are made from 100 percent recycled materials, then we can talk about buying a hybrid car to save the planet.

    This is incoherent thinking. First, you don’t need to be thinking the only eco choice is hybrid. Its not. My next vehicle is a standard internal combustion engine simply done better (88mpg). Worrying about the carbon footprint of the input materials is worrying about a small fraction of the overall carbon footprint (15 to25%). Besides levels of material recycling, re-manufacture, and re-use are going up all the time.

    Recycling has moved on of late and is now better seen as a component in the bigger framework of the Circular Economy. I/we (hats) are getting involved in initiatives to dramatically reduce the amount of manufacturing and raw resource/feedstocks needed and reduce the amount of energy and CO2 embodied. We have learned from the automotive industry about this. All the aluminium in aluminium cars is recycled material. Re-manufacturing and re-use was pioneered in the automotive industry. Vehicles are increasingly designed with this in mind.

    In what other sphere of collective endeavour have you discounted your own contribution as being inadequate on its own for the task? At the game, your side scores but there is no point cheering because it won’t make any difference to the overall effect? You’ve watched a brilliant but challenging play. The audience are stunned into silence. Someone claps all alone. Do you add a second clap? We are copiers, we humans, with different thresholds to join in. There are quite a few applauding the eco stance. At what point will you feel comfortable joining in?



    Report abuse

  • 73
    Reckless Monkey says:

    In reply to #61 by rzzz:

    In reply to #12 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #10 by David R Allen:

    As a country and by land area Australia’s contribution to climate change is negligible (far less than 3rd world countries such Indonesia and many African States). Australia could immediately revert to a stoneage economy and there would no measurable effect on the progress of anthropogenic climate change.

    No one here is saying that Australians individual contributions to AGW would have a massive impact on AGW. But with us being the second largest exporter of coal in the world and exporting massive amounts of coal seam gas. Stopping the export of that much carbon would have a huge effect. Aside from that the ethical thing to do is for everyone to do their bit. And exactly where are you getting the stone age economy nonsense from?



    Report abuse

  • 74
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #66 by rizvoid:

    That’s what I think. So, having said this, I believe, these green energy schemes, green cars, green this and that, these are all designed to make people happy, and sell products of course.

    Just plain arguments from ignorant assertions, in denial of the real issues!

    Take into account how much politics, economics, money making,

    More backward thinking and just making stuff up! I gave links to the economic issues @59 and @62.

    and how little science, is involved in these schemes,

    Your unwillingness to study the science, and your denial of the science, does not make any difference to the facts.

    then we can all see quite clearly how childish all of these things really are.

    I am afraid it is your own childish denial of reality which you project onto those who are working on solutions to the problems.

    It is a selfish, irresponsible, cop-out, from responsibility as a citizen of Earth.

    There is so much which CAN be done to avoid future disasters affecting millions.

    “I like driving my gas-guzzler, so nothing can be done!” is not a rational argument!



    Report abuse

  • 75
    Reckless Monkey says:

    I need to go to bed so this will be my last post on this. However I have just this to say.

    Our energy budget on this planet is thus:

    Total direct Sunlight (solar + wind+hyrdo electric+ biofuels) + Gravitational tugs from Moon (tidal) + radioactive decay of Earth’s Core (geothermal).

    Any other power source like Fossil Fuels will eventually need to be done away with for no other reason than they will eventually run out. Yes if we can get fusion working the time we could use this would be very very long but it is not likely to be with us any-time soon.

    I would be very interested if anyone can correct me on this.

    So ultimately we will need to live within this budget (which is substantial). It makes economic sense to do this now global warming aside. But given that the evidence coming in from 10 000 highly trained scientists all points in the direction that Global Warming is real, happening now and a significant treat to our future I say it’s about bloody time we grew up and sacrifice a few percent of our GDP. It will hurt much less than the last global financial crisis has cost most of the world and once the infrastructure is up will have minimal ongoing costs and reward us all with cleaner air, less pollution and remove much of the global conflict over energy (does anyone here believe we would have gone to gulf war 2 if there was no need for oil – hell would anyone over there be in a position to be any sort of treat if their oil was worth nothing?). Or we can wait a decade or two until we are forced to do this out of demand for ever diminishing resources and screw up the planet even more. The choice is ours I hope we can make a rational one.



    Report abuse

  • 76
    phil rimmer says:

    In reply to #75 by Reckless Monkey:

    I need to go to bed so this will be my last post on this. However I have just this to say.

    Our energy budget on this planet is thus:

    Total direct Sunlight (solar + wind+hyrdo electric+ biofuels) + Gravitational tugs from Moon (tidal) + radioactive decay of Earth’s Core (geothermal).

    Thats about it. Solar and geothermal are fluxes that happen anyway and they are not any more used up by us standing in the flow. To that extent they are free as long as they last. Tidal is a finite resource that we will use up by tapping it. So too, fission and fusion energy. Fissionable fuel though is being made now in supernova nucleosynthesis processes, but the fusion fuels of deuterium and tritium were made once during the big bang.

    Edit No the fissionable materials eg U235 appear to be primordial or cosmogenic nuclides (made once) as well.

    Going to the stars may need us to start budgeting now.



    Report abuse

  • 77
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #76 by phil rimmer:

    Tidal is a finite resource that we will use up by tapping it.

    I can’t recall where, but I think there was an estimate that tidal energy could be tapped for about 2 million years, but it is not clear to what extent this will simply divert the energy away from dissipating in coastal abrasion.



    Report abuse

  • 78
    phil rimmer says:

    In reply to #77 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #76 by phil rimmer:

    Tidal is a finite resource that we will use up by tapping it.

    I can’t recall where, but I think there was an estimate that tidal energy could be tapped for about 2 million years, but it is not clear to what extent this will simply divert the energy away from dissipa…

    It might have been a response to me. I did a calculation and did it wrong I recall. I said a thousand years. 🙁

    These are the numbers

    Rotational energy of the earth 2e29J

    Annual electricity production 1e20J

    Lengthening the day after 2 million years by approximately 1 minute 30 seconds. Its current rate of slowing in the same time would have been 30 seconds. We’d be extracting three times more energy than the natural dissipation on shorelines and in tidal/crustal movements. The civil engineering for that is, of course, inconceivable.

    So it would seem that we could possibly divert some number less one third of our current annual energy needs with barrage schemes around every coastline without adding to the rate of slowdown. (How much less depends on crustal dissipation…)

    (I’ll do anything rather than work.)



    Report abuse

  • 79
    Light Wave says:

    In reply to #19 by David R Allen:

    In reply to #12 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #10 by David R Allen:

    Australia, and Australians are now an embarrassment around the world in the fight against global warming. A new right wing conservative government has just been elected by Australians. Their first act was to repeal a carbon tax. The Pri…

    All this negative talk of Australia is just pointless hatred….
    Population of oil and coal using countries……should point the finger of real blame…
    China – 1.3 Billion…India – 1.2 Billion…USA -.319 Million……UK – 63 Million and Australia – 22 Million
    and you say Australia should be a world leader ? Really…. Really ? That suits America just fine…..the Richest world country !



    Report abuse

  • 80
    Len Walsh says:

    In reply to #79 by Light Wave:

    22 Million and you say Australia should be a world leader ? Really…. Really ? That suits America just fine…..the Richest world country !…

    I object Light Wave. You blithely ignored the 1 Million (at least) of us who prefer a rational approach in your hateful calculation. Our population exceeds 23 million but never mind that trivial error. I have two brief questions for you.

    How does your evangelical Denialism address the OP?

    Have you read any of the other contributions to this thread?

    Scapegoating America is bizarre, considering Obama just made a speech acknowledging the implications of climate science, in contrast to Australia’s popular adoption of Jesuit rhetoric and destructive, dog-whistling anti-science slogans.



    Report abuse

  • 81
    Timothy McNamara says:

    Hey, I popped in at #47, and I’m back for another two cents.

    The posts denying Australia’s fallibility here, are bizarre. “Our carbon tax didn’t lower global CO2 so it’s useless, made my petrol a bit dearer too!” (use a whining voice to read that last quote). Or try “We have less people, so we don’t mean shit!” Excuse me, but the chairperson of the G20 is Australian, and as such it’d be nice if the 24 million back home weren’t imbeciles.

    “All this negative talk of Australia” said one poster (#79)…. You mean our economy that SELLS ROCKS, (actual cubic kilometres of our country monthly) TO SURVIVE, which are burned overseas to fuck the planet? Never mind the fact we are currently speeding up export by cutting a dredged canal through THE GREAT BARRIER REEF. World Heritage site? What’s that? I’m a conservative government. Is it like the ENDANGERED SPECIES list? I thought that becomes irrelevant when the WA premier decides swimmers and surfers should have Great White sharks culled to make them feel a little safer. A little safer whilst in the habitat of the animals that accidentally kill around the same amount of language-apes as lightning strikes.

    The global establishment of a cost of carbon pollution will be seen (by anyone who survives this shit and can still read) as more valid than a gold price which simply upheld global wealth measurement. It is fun and hurtful both, if any reader learns anything from my rant. YAY internet, humans, and “Having Grandkids”. All the people citing their future “grandkids” as a purpose for not being polluting, extinction causing scum. Our species has increased by 6 billion in 80 years. That is a plague, it’s graph is a simple hieroglyph of spectacular resource exhausting extinction. We hardly need a fucking breeding program.

    “Civil unrest”, or ” The troubled province of …” in news bulletins today, might seem like paradise, compared to the reality of the time during which you plan to inject “grandkids” into.



    Report abuse

  • 82
    Len Walsh says:

    In reply to #81 by Timothy McNamara:

    Hey, I popped in at #47, and I’m back for another two cents.

    Refreshingly sensible intercession again too.

    The global establishment of a cost of carbon pollution will be seen (by anyone who survives this shit and can still read) as more valid than a gold price which simply upheld global wealth measurement.

    Precisely hitting this nail on the head.

    Australia’s treasurer is an innumerate former Catholic classmate of the PM.

    The missed opportunity others have mentioned is tragic for Aussies. As we close the last of our industries, or those who own them withdraw, our fragile continent leads the charge with extinctions. The landscape is seen as threatening “fuel load’ to be burned or plundered. Species disappear in million hectare wildfires that burn for weeks unless rain intercedes. Come winter and “fuel reduction” burns eradicate more, although they do save on fencing costs and insurance premiums.



    Report abuse

  • 83
    Light Wave says:

    In reply to #80 by Len Walsh:

    In reply to #79 by Light Wave:

    22 Million and you say Australia should be a world leader ? Really…. Really ? That suits America just fine…..the Richest world country !…

    I object Light Wave. You blithely ignored the 1 Million (at least) of us who prefer a rational approach in your hateful cal…

    I didn’t actually deny anything – other than point out that there are bigger polluters than Australia that have been denying their part for longer than Australia…Australia and America didn’t sign the Kyoto Protocol initially but Australia did in 2005…… America has dithered for over 10 years… polluting 10 times more than what Australia does …..The only irrational or hateful tone is your venomous response…
    I’m not a climate change denier by the way and my family are half Brit and half Australian…I object to the infantile ‘all Australians should be embarrassed’ comments …..I voted for Kevin Rudd who signed the protocol…..

    So the population I quoted wasn’t exact to 1 million – so what ?…..my point was actually that America has 13 times more polluters than Australia while China has over 100 times more than Australia’s population,

    I not a scientist I don’t have the answers and don’t claim to, but I do have an opinion as valid as yours …..I maybe be more un informed than you of all the facts, but you skilfully skirted the point I was trying to make and responded with insults…



    Report abuse

  • 84
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #83 by Light Wave:

    So the population I quoted wasn’t exact to 1 million – so what ?…..my point was actually that America has 13 times more polluters than Australia while China has over 100 times more than Australia’s population,

    I think before you start quoting China, you should look at where China and others get their carbon pollution from!

    Australia is the world’s leading coal exporter.http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports.html

    Over the past 10 years black coal exports have increased by more than 50%.

    Japan takes 39.3% of Australia’s black coal exports – the largest share, with a total of 115.3 million tonnes exported last financial year.

    China is our second largest market with 42.4 million tonnes in 2009-2010, almost double the previous year.

    The Republic of Korea accounts for 40.7 million tonnes, India for 31.92 million tonnes and Taiwan for 26.53 million tonnes, rounding out the top five destinations for coal from Australia.

    Together these five countries accounted for 88% of all black coal exports with a further 28 countries taking the remaining 12%.

    In 2011, Australia’s thermal coal exports grew by four %, relative to 2010, to total 148 million tonnes. Projections for 2012 see an increase of 10% in 2012 to 162 million tonnes, then growing at an average annual rate of 11 % between 2013 and 2017, to total 271 million tonnes by the end of the period.

    In a world being crippled by increased storms, floods, and droughts, from climate change, these figures should be a cause for shame!



    Report abuse

  • 85
    Reckless Monkey says:

    In reply to #81 by Timothy McNamara:

    Hey, I popped in at #47, and I’m back for another two cents.

    The posts denying Australia’s fallibility here, are bizarre. “Our carbon tax didn’t lower global CO2 so it’s useless, made my petrol a bit dearer too!” (use a whining voice to read that last quote). Or try “We have less people, so we don’…

    Firstly love your rant, pretty much spot on. As one of the people mentioning wanting grandkids some day and noting you making a valid point about overpopulation I feel I need to make a comment here. I have a child. My wife and I discussed when he was two if we would have another and on the list was do we have the right to have two considering the resources we would use (this was something that came up when we decided to have our first also). Now this was a factor when we decided not to have any more I won’t say it was the only reason there were many, however it was a factor. This was a normal part of the discussion and we made no more of it until we mentioned it as one of the reasons to others urging use to expand our family. What shocked me was the looks on almost everyones faces when we told them, it was as though we were some sort of monsters for being so selfish for not wanting to give our child a playmate or give more love or something. Convincing people they should voluntarily reduce population is something that will need a lot more work. The reason I argue about AGW is however that I want the species to go on sustainably and that cannot happen if no-one breeds ever so I do get your larger point but defend the right of people to care about their progeny – I just hope they can see odds are better for us all at the moment if we choose to have 1 or none.



    Report abuse

  • 86
    rizvoid says:

    In reply to #74 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #66 by rizvoid:
    In reply to #85 by Reckless Monkey:

    In reply to #81 by Timothy McNamara:

    “I like driving my gas-guzzler, so nothing can be done!” is not a rational argument!

    I don’t have a gas-guzzler. I have an ordinary car converted to run on LPG, which the government says is a much cleaner and greener fuel than petrol or diesel. See, I am doing my bit, too.

    Tell you the truth, Alan, I don’t like the Americans for their love of big cars and gas-guzzlers, and I think they have exported this problem and trend into this country as well. This country is big, most of it is empty, but surprisingly, unlike the US, roads here are not as wide, and parking spaces are not as big as well. So, big cars are kind of a hassle here if you live in a big city, like I do.. Therefore, I like small or medium cars. Those cute-looking little Japanese and Europeans, minus those funny-looking hybrids and electrics they also make. But the day they make an electric/hybrid car out of 100 recycled materials, and on manufacturing facilities constructed from 100 percent recycled materials and running on 100 percent renewal energy sources, I will be first one of the first few ones to buy such a car.



    Report abuse

  • 87
    Len Walsh says:

    In reply to #83 by Light Wave:

    In reply to #80 by Len Walsh:

    I not a scientist I don’t have the answers and don’t claim to, but I do have an opinion as valid as yours …..I maybe be more un informed than you of all the facts, but you skilfully skirted the point I was trying to make and responded with insults…

    I merely asked you a pair of simple questions related to the OP which you have rudely ignored.

    Your uninformed opinion isn’t superior to mine because I have dutifully followed the links and arguments furnished by others, whereas you have not. Your hatred of us is not rendered relevant by pretending you have scored a point in blaming others. Those of us with kids are accustomed to that lame tactic.

    The only irrational or hateful tone is your venomous response…

    Please refrain from projecting your feelings onto me, simply because you failed to understand what I’ve written. We may constitute merely a million or two Aussies but there are tens or possibly hundreds of millions of us who respect the science. I’m disinterested in squabbling with you when you’re so unwilling to learn.



    Report abuse

  • 88
    Light Wave says:

    In reply to #84 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #83 by Light Wave:

    So the population I quoted wasn’t exact to 1 million – so what ?…..my point was actually that America has 13 times more polluters than Australia while China has over 100 times more than Australia’s population,

    I think before you start quoting China, you should look…

    I think…. if Alan4 says it then I take some notice…….But then why aren’t you (not personally) bad-mouthing China for demanding the Australian coal – who’s fault is their need ?….If the coal reserves happened to be in Britain we’d be selling it too ….and by the way why isn’t there a word said about Arabian countries and America supplying the worlds Oil pollution ? If I’m un-informed then its not by wilful ignorance…I’m trying to understand this !



    Report abuse

  • 89
    Len Walsh says:

    In reply to #86 by rizvoid:

    the day they make an electric/hybrid car…

    You’re confusing they with us. We lack sufficient time to evolve. Your devout denialism illustrates the daunting task ahead for all of us.



    Report abuse

  • 90
    David R Allen says:

    In reply to #83 by Light Wave:

    In reply to #80 by Len Walsh:

    In reply to #79 by Light Wave:

    22 Million and you say Australia should be a world leader ? Really…. Really ? That suits America just fine…..the Richest world country !…

    I object Light Wave. You blithely ignored the 1 Million (at least) of us who prefer a ration…

    What you are not addressing, either deliberately or accidentally, is that Australians are the second worst polluters on the planet, only beaten by the Americans. Our per capita use of carbon is second worst in the world.

    Now imagine your Australia’s Foreign Minister (in a rational Australian Govt. Not the current one.) and you’ve been sent to China and India, the bad guys you single out as the evil twins. Now stand at the table and tell them to reduce their fossil fuels burning. Preach to them the sins of their position. They will laugh you out of the room as they indicate our silver medal status as carbon polluters. They will say; “Look in the mirror sunshine.”

    That is why Australia must be a world leader in reducing carbon emissions. That is why your Andrew Bolt argument fails. Australia, one of the richest countries in the world must demonstrate that we are prepared to wear some financial pain, because the issue of global warming is so serious. We must be able to take one on the chin and get a few scars. It’s called leading by example.



    Report abuse

  • 91
    rizvoid says:

    In reply to #89 by Len Walsh:

    In reply to #86 by rizvoid:

    the day they make an electric/hybrid car…

    You’re confusing they with us. We lack sufficient time to evolve. Your devout denialism illustrates the daunting task ahead for all of us.

    What daunting task lies ahead for us?



    Report abuse

  • 92
    Len Walsh says:

    In reply to #91 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #89 by Len Walsh:

    In reply to #86 by rizvoid:

    the day they make an electric/hybrid car…

    You’re confusing they with us. We lack sufficient time to evolve. Your devout denialism illustrates the daunting task ahead for all of us.

    What daunting task lies ahead for us?

    The dilemma posed by the OP. You seem to have drifted off.



    Report abuse

  • 93
    Light Wave says:

    In reply to #87 by Len Walsh:

    In reply to #83 by Light Wave:

    In reply to #80 by Len Walsh:

    I not a scientist I don’t have the answers and don’t claim to, but I do have an opinion as valid as yours …..I maybe be more un informed than you of all the facts, but you skilfully skirted the point I was trying to make and responded…

    This kind of answer creeps me out – so many lies and trashy hating from Mr Hater….I don’t hate anyone ! – who is the ‘us’ you refer to Aussies ? Humans ? Parents ? Science ? Atheists ? I am all of the people you have in mind……you sound completely paranoid……like you are some ex religious priest type or something…I’m half Aussie I don’t hate my own family I’m atheist I don’t deny climate change answer your own f **ing question…stop answering me if you don’t want to respond with hate…you are showing a bitter and twisted side on many of your posts….that’s okay…we can all do a bit of that sometimes….I’m not that interested in your inferior opinion (sarcastic) but I’d consider Alan 4’s opinion to be superior to yours – LOL



    Report abuse

  • 94
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #88 by Light Wave:

    In reply to #84 by Alan4discussion:

    I think…. if Alan4 says it then I take some notice…….But then why aren’t you (not personally) bad-mouthing China for demanding the Australian coal

    The Chinese are currently one of the worst polluters on the the planet … …..

    BUT: – They are also leaders in construction capacity of hydroelectric generation, leaders in manufacturers of solar green technology, and leaders in research into thorium nuclear generators — so they recognise the global problem and are working on it.

    I do not see a similar situation with the Australian government.
    The UK also has a problem with pro-gas-fracker Cameron, and the Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, a Conservative, is, in the words of the Financial Times, a “known climate change sceptic”. So, too, is a Conservative member of the Commons energy and climate change committee, Peter Lilley. – http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/09/denying-climate-change-worse-spreading-usual-kind-conspiracy-theory-it-costs-lives

    But the climate-change deniers of today, with their astonishing combination of manufactured doubt, faux outrage, mass paranoia and evidence-free pseudoscience, are endangering our planet. According to the World Health Organisation, “climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually”. The poorest countries, incidentally, bear the brunt of these preventable fatalities.



    Report abuse

  • 95
    Len Walsh says:

    In reply to #93 by Light Wave:

    In reply to #87 by Len Walsh:

    This kind of answer creeps me out – so many lies and trashy hating from Mr Hater….I don’t hate anyone !

    You accused those of us who complained of Australia’s ignorant approach to climate science of expressing “pointless hatred”.
    Can you support this? I haven’t noticed anyone say they hated Australia, and I certainly haven’t done so.

    who is the ‘us’ you refer to Aussies ? Humans ? Parents ? Science ? Atheists ? I am all of the people you have in mind

    Rational people who respect climate science, whether or not they understand the finer points or underlying physics. People who can evaluate the evidence and assign the appropriate importance to the information. In other words informed people, wherever they live.

    stop answering me if you don’t want to respond with hate…you are showing a bitter and twisted side on many of your posts

    I love you. What on Earth gave you the impression I dislike you, much less “hate” you? I was trying to help you adjust to the inconvenient truth, that’s all.

    I’m not that interested in your inferior opinion…but I’d consider Alan 4’s opinion to be superior to yours

    Fine by me. I was merely trying to help you develop some scepticism.

    A4D’s explanations and supporting links are without peer. I’m chuffed you took the time to evaluate and trust your curiosity has been aroused.

    • LOL

    Very droll.



    Report abuse

  • 96
    rizvoid says:

    In reply to #92 by Len Walsh:

    In reply to #91 by rizvoid:

    The dilemma posed by the OP. You seem to have drifted off.

    The OP asks if it possible to evolve in case global warming can’t be reversed or avoided. Evolve to withstand extreme temperatures, radiation, being able to live in water and all that. Are you saying the task ahead for us is to evolve into some tougher creatures??



    Report abuse

  • 97
    Moderator says:

    Moderators’ message

    Please keep the disagreements civil, and avoid making derogatory comments about other users.

    Thank you.

    The mods



    Report abuse

  • 98
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #86 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #74 by Alan4discussion:

    I don’t have a gas-guzzler. I have an ordinary car converted to run on LPG, which the government says is a much cleaner and greener fuel than petrol or diesel. See, I am doing my bit, too.

    I am pleased to hear it. High MPG efficient vehicles and LPG are steps in the right direction. I mentioned ethanol as a bio-fuel earlier @59.

    Good public transport using electric trams and trolley buses, is also a clean option in cities, if molten salt solar thermal with heat storage systems are used to generate the electricity 24/7 where there are sunny climates.

    Tell you the truth, Alan, I don’t like the Americans for their love of big cars and gas-guzzlers, and I think they have exported this problem and trend into this country as well. This country is big, most of it is empty, but surprisingly, unlike the US, roads here are not as wide, and parking spaces are not as big as well.

    When my daughter was working in New York for a year, she considered their use and their parking ridiculous. – Especially in states with 50mph speed limits! She left her 1 litre Nissan Micra for her mother to use in the UK until she returned.

    So, big cars are kind of a hassle here if you live in a big city, like I do.. Therefore, I like small or medium cars.

    I agree, but good regular public transport systems are better unless you have a large load.



    Report abuse

  • 99
    rizvoid says:

    In reply to #98 by Alan4discussion:

    I agree, but good regular public transport systems are better unless you have a large load.

    Of course. I love to take a ride on public transport, especially when going to the city. It’s cheap, comfortable and you just sit back and relax and enjoy the ride. In fact, I sometimes wonder why would people use cars to travel in Europe where they have such an excellent system of trains. I can spend the rest of my life exploring Europe on trains if given the opportunity…But if people didn’t have cars, and everyone started travelling on public transports, the public transport systems wouldn’t be able to cope with the extra load…



    Report abuse

  • 100
    mmurray says:

    Just listening on the radio to someone from the petroleum industry talking about the upcoming expansion of the natural gas exploitation in the Cooper Basin (South Australia). We are selling it to developing nations. Then we turn around and complain that there is no point in Australia doing anything to combat climate change because we are such a small part of it. It’s those nasty developing nations that are the problem.

    Michael



    Report abuse

  • 101
    Len Walsh says:

    In reply to #96 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #92 by Len Walsh:

    Are you saying the task ahead for us is to evolve into some tougher creatures??

    No. I’m suggesting that only a concerted effort which can result from a critical mass of humans recognizing the severity of the problem will mitigate the effects of catastrophic climate change. The exact severity is unknown but scientists are conservative so the danger is real. For that to occur we need political will and proven economic mechanisms like pricing carbon to accelerate change. Only price mechanisms work quickly enough to force a noticeable change.

    The “we” I refer to includes all humans and whichever other species we decide deserve our efforts.



    Report abuse

  • 102
    David R Allen says:

    Evolution of homo sapien?

    I know evolution is a slow process in larger animals, and can be very rapid in Lenski’s E Coli. I ponder at times, what stage are human beings in their evolution. When I type on my QWERTY, I know it is possible for every person on the planet to read my diatribes. When I look out the window, I see a world that has basically been created since WW2.

    When I look at that world, I know humans haven’t evolved to fit in the world I see. So where are we. This is my totally uninformed speculation. I think we’re probably still at the hunter / gather stone age stage. I look at human behaviour and see antics that would fit right in with valley of stone age tribes. Tribalism, a brilliant evolutionary survival strategy still rampant. Today, we call it nationalism. You can see its effects manifest in Light Wave’s posts. Defend the Australian tribe regardless of the evidence.

    I watch young men an women go through rituals of warriors and wenches, that have been played out for centuries. Have you ever see those wonderful videos of the young male Masai warriors standing in a circle with their spears jumping as high as they can, trying to look cool. With the Masai girls standing in groups tittering and smiling behind hands. So our young men in their decorated cars, ray ban sunnies and “Who’s got the coolest clothes” perform the same rituals. Our preoccupation with place in the tribe, and striving to climb to the highest level, because you get to pass on more of you genes. Office gossip and office politics mirrored in that wonderful David Attenborough documentary on the baboons of Ethiopia.

    So how do stone age humans cope with global warming? We don’t. We don’t have the evolved skills necessary to stop the juggernaut. Most of the planets billions think only about the immediate future. Stone age thinking. My next meal. My next bill. The footy game on Saturday. Most the the planets billions only expend energy on things to get to tomorrow. We have not evolved to think about the consequences of what I do today, having an impact in 100 years. And we don’t care. The only people who think about stuff like this are people who through rational thought, are able to override the stone age imperatives and look over the horizon. Some live in this blog. They can think, and blog, and take all the action they like, but most of the billions of the planet can’t understand them, see no reason to interrupt what they are doing and will not do anything to stop global warming.

    So we’re stuffed. I wish we could evolve very rapidly to keep up with our technology. But we can’t. We have been faced with situations like this in the past, and it is possible to mobilize the planet, but you need to get humanities attention. We won’t do anything about global warming until we get a slap in the face. Some people, like the occupants of Tuvalu, who are up to their shins in sea water, have received a slap, but they don’t count. Until America in particular, and the rest of the G20 nations get a back hander, we will drift down the river to the waterfall abyss. We did it with the ozone hole. The entire planet, within 5 years of seeing those dramatic videos of the ozone hole over the Antarctic came together and joint in a treaty to ban CFC’s. But it took the slap of the video and the threat of melanoma cancers to do it.

    What we need is something like a quarter of Greenland’s ice sheet to slip into the northern Atlantic, bringing Tsunami’s down the east coast of America and west coast of Europe. If something like this happened, ten years after, we would have stopped the use of all coal and oil. But global warming is slow and invisible. What people see today, is the norm. What people see in 10 years, will be the norm. The classic frog in the saucepan on a low heat.

    So I would ask the billions of the planet, to voluntarily evolve, rapidly if possible, to because informed, rational and skeptical people. Look over the horizon and through the power of democracy, only vote for a politician (No Parties – They’re ideologues) who meets those criteria.



    Report abuse

  • re: op

    The difference between humans today and humans 20,000 years ago is very small. If we were stripped of all technology (ability to make clothes, shelter, environmental controls…) the selection pressures of a worst case scenario environmental change over the next 100 years would almost certainly not be enough to provoke any noticeable evolutionary change. Maybe 1000 years of living/breeding through harsher conditions (without the aid of technology) would be enough.

    But the caveat of technology changes everything. Rather than evolving to flourish in extreme conditions we create and rely on technology to basically adapt our environment to us. As technology is cultural rather than genetic, fitness plays an increasingly small role in our survival and procreation. Furthermore, our compassion and social drives diminish the overall environmental pressures that would normally drive evolution.

    Sexual selection is likely to be bigger influence during our current stage of evolution. But thanks to alcohol and many other factors, we probably shouldn’t expect too much from sexual selection either.



    Report abuse

  • 104
    AllusiveAtheist says:

    re: op

    The difference between humans today and humans 20,000 years ago is very small. If we were stripped of all technology (ability to make clothes, shelter, environmental controls…) the selection pressures of a worst case scenario environmental change over the next 100 years would almost certainly not be enough to provoke any noticeable evolutionary change. Maybe 1000 years of living/breeding through harsher conditions (without the aid of technology) would be enough.

    But the caveat of technology changes everything. Rather than evolving to flourish in extreme conditions we create and rely on technology to basically adapt our environment to us. As technology is cultural rather than genetic, fitness plays an increasingly small role in our survival and procreation. Furthermore, our compassion and social drives diminish the overall environmental pressures that would normally drive evolution.

    Sexual selection is likely to be bigger influence during our current stage of evolution. But thanks to alcohol and many other factors, we probably shouldn’t expect too much from sexual selection either.



    Report abuse

  • 105
    Veri Quaerens Sum says:

    If I’m understanding your question I would bet on Humans not adapting on the fact that we have technology that could be implemented so that it wasn’t unnecessary, even if we didn’t have current technology and the climate changed quickly people would probably go underground and come out to hunt and end up slowly adapting over time.

    I’m not sure why people are talking about water world there isn’t enough water to completely cover the plant. It would be the heat not the water.



    Report abuse

  • 106
    Reckless Monkey says:

    In reply to #88 by Light Wave:

    In reply to #84 by Alan4discussion:

    In reply to #83 by Light Wave:

    I think…. if Alan4 says it then I take some notice…….But then why aren’t you (not personally) bad-mouthing China for demanding the Australian coal – who’s fault is their need ?….If the coal reserves happened to be in Britain we’d be selling it too ….and by the way why isn’t there a word said about Arabian countries and America supplying the worlds Oil pollution ? If I’m un-informed then its not by wilful ignorance…I’m trying to understand this !

    Hi Lightwave,

    I can’t speak for Alan, however a few of us who have been involved are Australian. So from our perspective we are talking about what we can do – we are in no position to anything but negotiate with China. We can control what we export. So my argument is what is ethical for us. That is all we have any control over. After that we can only hope that others will see it is also in their self interest. However at this point we are the one of the ones dragging the chain.



    Report abuse

  • 107
    CdnMacAtheist says:

    I’m feeling left out in this discussion, since Canada is in many ways similar to Australia & we also have denialists here – both citizens influenced by the USA, plus companies & politicians pushing really big polluters like our Tar Sands, which is like the coal mines in Oz, since our biggest customers will be anybody we can export to. Canada has a small population, but we’re also near the top for pollution & trash output per capita, while our weather requires lots of power to keep us comfy, pampered & mobile year round, especially when we fly off south to better climates during the winter..!!

    Canada also has its Creationist Faithist PM Harper, who’s gutting our state science depts, pretending to support some green initiatives but pushing oil & tar sands industries in his native Alberta to generate big money needed to prop up our economy after our mfg base was gutted by off-shore economies since 1975. We’re selling our natural resources asap to keep our economy afloat, while the nuclear & renewable power generation industries get no help, so we’re as bad as anybody & similar to the Australian low population density situation.

    I’ve always been a ‘small is beautiful’ guy, eschewing the typical Cdn / USA lifestyle & over-consumption of everything that our high incomes, economical models & crass commercialism encourage us to indulge in. I’ve cut back my lifestyle / carbon footprint over 15 years, more since 2010 when I retired from working ‘on the road’ & my driving went from 40k/yr to 10k/yr while travel is done frugally in my ’05 compact wagon. So, I’m doing my bit to reduce my loading on the system, therefore I feel somewhat justified in my occasional rants about the profligacy of others.

    I live in the ground floor of a large suburban home where I keep the temp at a low-cost level, despite not directly paying for the gas & electricity. Same with the lighting I’m very anal about switching off – all flourescent, led or timed – plus the high efficiency appliances which I use sparingly. It’s odd that we call Ontario electricity ‘hydro’ as if most of it’s made that way, since it’s 55% nuclear, 25% hydro, 10% gas, 7% coal (being phased out) & only 2% wind.

    I get down to the roots by ranting about overpopulation, the driver of our climate change problems. For me the issue is the main driver of population growth, which is religions trying to outgrow each other for dominance, while infecting their slaves to believe in pie-in-the-sky as promised by their guy-in-the-sky. Their belief that ‘god’ will save them allows these faithists to ignore reality & any evidence that conflicts with their delusions. Now, you may claim that “not all god-did-it folk are like that”, but I say those are the ones who don’t actually follow all the dictates of their personal version of their specific deity.

    I’m sorry for dragging faith into this evolution & climate thread, but I agree that ‘Religion Poisons Everything’ … Mac.



    Report abuse

  • 109
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #99 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #98 by Alan4discussion:

    I agree, but good regular public transport systems are better unless you have a large load.

    Of course. I love to take a ride on public transport, especially when going to the city. It’s cheap, comfortable and you just sit back and relax and enjoy the ride.

    But if people didn’t have cars, and everyone started travelling on public transports, the public transport systems wouldn’t be able to cope with the extra load…

    That is only so in the heavily over-populated congested areas like London or New York – but is mainly because the roads are cluttered up with cars.

    Elsewhere, or if car-use reduced, the extra numbers of passengers would just make the services more frequent and more efficient.

    Densely populated cities are ideal for trams (over-ground or underground) and modern trolley buses. The main fault of historical trolley buses was the need to manually move the points on overhead power cables, but with modern GPS and wi-fi automation should no longer be a problem. All city buses could be replaced with electric trolleybuses cleaning up the air and reducing carbon emissions.



    Report abuse

  • 110
    SaganTheCat says:

    humans have smothered the planet already so that inproves the species chances of surviving. right now there are humans, weak bald apes, living in desserts and permafrost due to their ability to adapt their environment. modern humans only evolved to survive in the african savannah but still managed to move to every continent.

    natural disasters aren’t survived by a species “adapting” because it’s too late. if a species is already adapted however, it can survive and flourish where its competition dies out. it is possible though that a disaster could wipe out so many humans that only a few survive in remote parts of the world. this could lead to speciation if those survivors’ descendants never meet.

    however, the abiltiy to pass on knowledge and build/use tools will always give humans some advantage over other animals, the species has existed for maybe 200,000 years and experienced some extreme temperature changes in that time. if there’s only one place left on earth habitable to humans it’s still good news for the species since it’s probably already living there.

    It’s a roll of the dice wether you live or die. however humans have 7 billion dice to roll. so my opinion, humans will survive even the most extreme temperature change. the ones who do survive won’t like it much though



    Report abuse

  • 111
    canadian_right says:

    In reply to #29 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #26 by David R Allen:

    Your entire argument for not saving your grand children’s life is some rich person won’t make a profit. That is the summary of this entire diatribe.

    Oh I am sorry. I think I have gotten myself into an unfavorable situation here.

    Tell you the truth, I don’t unders … We cannot reverse global warming.

    We cannot reverse global warming overnight, or in the next decade, but we can reverse it given enough time, money, and government policy supporting that goal. We don’t because it would reduce profits for the currently rich and powerful who have an inordinate amount of influence on government policy.

    As usual, we will wait util things are so dire that no one can deny it is a problem then we’ll fix it at a hundred times the cost than if we had acted earlier. The poor will suffer and the rich will profit.



    Report abuse

  • 112
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #110 by canadian_right:

    As usual, we will wait util things are so dire that no one can deny it is a problem then we’ll fix it at a hundred times the cost than if we had acted earlier. The poor will suffer and the rich will profit.

    There is a classic example in the UK at present.

    Only a few weeks ago David-carbonaceous-gas-fracking-Cameron, was insisting that large CUTS in the Environment Agency’s and local councils’ budgets for specialists in land management, dredging rivers, maintaining coastal defences, equipping fire brigades etc were absolutely essential!
    Now he is running around like a headless chicken in flood inundated areas with water in houses, no electricity, and no trains, telling everyone, “Money is no object!”



    Report abuse

  • 113
    Alan4discussion says:

    In reply to #111 by Alan4discussion:

    Only a few weeks ago David-carbonaceous-gas-fracking-Cameron, was insisting that large CUTS in the Environment Agency’s and local councils’ budgets for specialists in land management, dredging rivers, maintaining coastal defences, equipping fire brigades etc were absolutely essential!
    Now he is running around like a headless chicken in flood inundated areas with water in houses, no electricity, and no trains, telling everyone, “Money is no object!”

    Just to follow up with evidence on my last post: –

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/16/flood-area-defences-funding-cuts

    Flood area defences put on hold by government funding cuts
    Protections for parts of Somerset, Kent and Devon worth millions of pounds were planned but not delivered

    Flood-stricken communities, including those visited by David Cameron in the Somerset Levels and Yalding in Kent, have been left without planned defences following government funding cuts, the Guardian can reveal.

    Undelivered defences, totalling many millions of pounds, also include schemes on the stretch of Devon coast at Dawlish where the mainline railway fell into the sea and near the nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

    Ministers have been heavily criticised for cutting flood defence spending by almost £100m a year after taking power, but this is the first time specific projects affected by the cuts have been identified.

    In the heart of the Somerset Levels, a £2.2m scheme to improve flood management on the Parrett, the main river draining the Levels, and the nearby Sowy river, was postponed and currently has no prospect of funding before 2020.

    In March 2012, an Environment Agency (EA) report on the scheme said: “The [rivers’] combined function is of great importance to the effective management of floodwaters in the area.”

    Another scheme for the Parrett, near the village of Burrowbridge, was in line for £300,000 of funding from 2011-13 but has received nothing. The Parrett overtopped its banks by Burrowbridge in January and the village was cut off.

    A third scheme for the river, called “Parrett Estuary – Cannington Bends”, worth £6.2m, covered an area near where it meets the sea, just a few miles from the nuclear power station at Hinkley Point.

    The defences, which were to be part-funded by Hinkley-owner EDF Energy, would have moved 536 homes out of “the very significant or significant flood probability category to the moderate or low category”, according to EA documents. In 2010, the agency said the defences “urgently need updating” and the Cannington Bends area was heavily flooded in 2012, but the scheme has received no funding under the coalition and is currently in line for only £792,000 in 2016-17.

    The missing schemes were identified by the Guardian by comparing the flood defence spending plans for 2010-11, the final year of the last government’s budget and a high-water mark for flood defence spending, with the plans for subsequent years under the coalition.

    It was ironically comical watching Eric Pickles stand in for Owen Paterson (“He isn’t climate sceptic, he’s climate stupid.”) trying to blame the lack of preparation on: “Bad advice from the professionals at the Environment Agency”, when the cuts had been decided by the Treasury and approved by the government!

    We can expect lots of future money being spent on patch-ups due to lack of actions taken in good time – long and short term. I suppose Cameron will get back to promoting gas-fracking, once the panic about floods is over!



    Report abuse

  • In reply to #106 by CdnMacAtheist:

    Harper doesn’t seem quite as bad as Abbott though they both occupy the same space on the political spectrum. Abbott is hostile towards science to such a degree that it appears to be pathological. I’m sure he’s happy to enjoy the benefits of science on a personal level, however, if findings impede the chances of the people he represents (ie the mining sector) he’s quick to denounce scientific advice.

    I was very interested in the small part ‘hydro’ plays in Ontario. We had a guest from Toronto in 2012. The word ‘hydro’ was synonymous with ‘electricity’ when used by our guest. We had to correct the term whenever it was used because we didn’t want to give the impression that our electricity came from such an Eco friendly source.



    Report abuse

  • 115
    David R Allen says:

    Australia’s shame continues. The right wing conservative global warming denier government has appointed an Australian business man, Dick Warburton to head a review of the renewable energy sector in Australia. Warbuton was interviewed on ABC Radio this morning and said, “I am not a global warming denier. I believe that global warming is happening, but I am a skeptic as to whether it is being cause by carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.”

    Right out of the denier play book. So when is a denier, not a denier. If all of the evidence says that the burning of fossil fuel by man is causing global warming, if you deny that evidence, then that makes you a denier.

    A skeptic, by definition, is a person who questions the presented evidence, but if they find the evidence sound, then they will adopt that position as long as the evidences stands. If the evidence changes, then a skeptic will change to match that evidence. The global warming denier lobby has cleverly and with malice aforethought, hijacked the term “Skeptic”, a term with scientific meaning, and attached it to their questioning of the universal evidence in support of AGW. God help us… (Tongue in cheek)

    The term, “Climate Change” is another term maliciously created by big carbon lobby groups, to make it sound as if the planet is just naturally adjusting the climate of planet earth. I would encourage rational and skeptical people to “OUT” this term when they hear it. The correct expression when discussing this matter is “Anthropogenic Global Warming” AGW.



    Report abuse

  • 116
    CdnMacAtheist says:

    In reply to #113 by Nitya:

    In reply to #106 by CdnMacAtheist:
    I was very interested in the small part ‘hydro’ plays in Ontario. We had a guest from Toronto in 2012. The word ‘hydro’ was synonymous with ‘electricity’ when used by our guest. We had to correct the term whenever it was used because we didn’t want to give the impression that our electricity came from such an Eco friendly source.

    Hello Nitya…. 😎

    Using ‘Hydro’ for electricity is a throwback to the massive hydroelectric power stations in nearby Niagara Falls, which were a large part of the Southern Ontario ‘Golden Horseshoe’ industrial expansions over the past 130 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Falls_hydroelectric_generating_plants

    There were also monster coal-fired power stations nearby which only recently have been closed or are being phased out.

    We have 20 CANDU nuclear reactors in 3 locations that supply 55% of Ontario’s electricity, plus 1 reactor in New Brunswick.
    I made parts for, then was a Supplier to, AECL for 20 years, plus I worked at the R&D Lab in 1992-3 working – on measuring equipment I’d previously sold to them – to solve vibration problems in the Darlington heavy water circulation systems caused by the redesign of the pump vanes. I’ve manhandled ~1000 (inactive) nuclear fuel bundles without issue – although after a pint of beer I do get a glow on…. 😎

    I like to outdo motor sport pals with pix of my CANDU Fuel Bundle Fork Lift Drivers Licence…. Mac.



    Report abuse

  • 117
    Alan4discussion says:

    Could humans adapt or “evolve” to changing global climate?

    We might have to, with old diseases reappearing as the climate warms!

    30,000-year-old giant virus ‘comes back to life’ – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26387276

    An ancient virus has “come back to life” after lying dormant for at least 30,000 years, scientists say.

    It was found frozen in a deep layer of the Siberian permafrost, but after it thawed it became infectious once again.

    The French scientists say the contagion poses no danger to humans or animals, but other viruses could be unleashed as the ground becomes exposed.

    The study is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).



    Report abuse

  • 118
    Thomas Carter says:

    Blab Blab Blab Blab
    You have to be kidding
    All of you

    In reply to #60 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #55 by David R Allen:

    In reply to #52 by rizvoid:

    In reply to #51 by David R Allen:

    You represent a clear and present danger to my children and grand children. You threaten them with death or serious injury, not today, but in 50 years time. How should I react to you, and the global wa…



    Report abuse

  • 119
    David R Allen says:

    In reply to #117 by Thomas Carter:

    Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab Blab You have to be kidding All of you

    Since your erudite and evidence packed argument was obviously directed at me, would you care to expand a little and point out the flaws in my post that your reference. Could you deconstruct my post line by line, adduce evidence in support of your position and enlighten the readers as to which particular “Blab” is relevant to with particular point I made.



    Report abuse

  • 120
    Andrea R says:

    actually we would not probably be killed by the cold itself. People live in Alaska, Sybera and places like that and have a rather good life. I think the main problem will be with food. Our crops will be killed by cold, so we would die for starvation, not for cold.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.